course rule in Oregon

2025“We defer to the agency’s plausible interpretation of its own rule—including an inter- pretation made in the course of applying the rule—if that interpretation is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law.” Id. (citing Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P2d 119 (1994)).

2025In addressing OLCC’s interpretation of its own rule, under ORS 183.482(8)(a), our task is to determine if “the agency has erroneously interpreted a provision of law.” “We defer to the agency’s plausible interpretation of its own rule—including an interpretation made in the course of applying the rule—if that interpretation is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law.” Papas, 213 Or App at 377 .

2021As set forth in Barkers Five, LLC: “We will defer to LCDC’s ‘plausible interpretation of its own rules, including an interpretation made in the course of applying the rule, if that interpretation is not inconsis- tent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law.’ DeLeon, Inc. v. DHS, 220 Or App 542, 548 , 188 P3d 354 (2008) (citing Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132 , 881 P2d 119 (1994)); see also 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 305 Or 384, 390 , 752 P2d 271 (1988) (explaining that the legisla- ture’s entrustment of an agency ‘bot

2021As set forth in Barkers Five, LLC: “We will defer to LCDC’s ‘plausible interpretation of its own rules, including an interpretation made in the course of applying the rule, if that interpretation is not inconsis- tent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law.’ DeLeon, Inc. v. DHS, 220 Or App 542, 548 , 188 P3d 354 (2008) (citing Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132 , 881 P2d 119 (1994)); see also 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 305 Or 384, 390 , 752 P2d 271 (1988) (explaining that the legisla- ture’s entrustment of an agency ‘bot

2025Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P3d 119 (1994) (explain- ing that, under ORS 183.482(8)(a), a reviewing court will defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own administra- tive rule if that interpretation is plausible); Godinez v. SAIF, 269 Or App 578, 582-83 , 346 P3d 530 (2015) (explaining that deference to an agency’s plausible interpretation of its own rules includes “an interpretation made in the course of applying the rule, if that interpretation is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law” and notin

2025Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P3d 119 (1994) (explain- ing that, under ORS 183.482(8)(a), a reviewing court will defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own administra- tive rule if that interpretation is plausible); Godinez v. SAIF, 269 Or App 578, 582-83 , 346 P3d 530 (2015) (explaining that deference to an agency’s plausible interpretation of its own rules includes “an interpretation made in the course of applying the rule, if that interpretation is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law” and notin

2025Accordingly, “we con- sider the text of the rule and its context, including other portions of the rule and related laws, and the rule’s adoption history.” County of Klamath v. Ricard, 317 Or App 608, 612 , 507 P3d 333 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).4 4 When interpreting agency rules, “[w]e defer to [an] agency’s plausible interpretation of its own rule, including an interpretation made in the course of applying the rule, if that interpretation is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law.” Harris v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards, 287 O

2025Accordingly, “we con- sider the text of the rule and its context, including other portions of the rule and related laws, and the rule’s adoption history.” County of Klamath v. Ricard, 317 Or App 608, 612 , 507 P3d 333 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).4 4 When interpreting agency rules, “[w]e defer to [an] agency’s plausible interpretation of its own rule, including an interpretation made in the course of applying the rule, if that interpretation is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law.” Harris v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards, 287 O

2023When interpreting the board’s administrative rules, “[w]e will defer to the board’s plausible interpretation of its own rule, including an interpretation made in the course of applying the rule, if it is not inconsistent with the text of the rule, its context, or any other source of law.” McGuire v. SAIF, 317 Or App 629, 634-35 , 507 P3d 317 , rev den, 370 Or 197 (2022).

2023When interpreting the board’s administrative rules, “[w]e will defer to the board’s plausible interpretation of its own rule, including an interpretation made in the course of applying the rule, if it is not inconsistent with the text of the rule, its context, or any other source of law.” McGuire v. SAIF, 317 Or App 629, 634-35 , 507 P3d 317 , rev den, 370 Or 197 (2022).

2025Accordingly, in the course of our analysis, we assume without deciding that the board was correct that the issues raised by claimant in this case are not “matters concerning a claim.” 3 Claimant also asserts that “the board erred in holding that the director had exclusive jurisdiction over penalty issues under ORS 656.262(11)(a) when Cite as 340 Or App 431 (2025) 435 Specifically, claimant asserts that jurisdiction before the board was proper under ORS 656.325(6), because “being allowed to request a hearing pursuant to ORS 656.283 is express permission to request a hearing under the board’s ju

2025Accordingly, in the course of our analysis, we assume without deciding that the board was correct that the issues raised by claimant in this case are not “matters concerning a claim.” 3 Claimant also asserts that “the board erred in holding that the director had exclusive jurisdiction over penalty issues under ORS 656.262(11)(a) when Cite as 340 Or App 431 (2025) 435 Specifically, claimant asserts that jurisdiction before the board was proper under ORS 656.325(6), because “being allowed to request a hearing pursuant to ORS 656.283 is express permission to request a hearing under the board’s ju

2025Accordingly, “we con- sider the text of the rule and its context, including other portions of the rule and related laws, and the rule’s adoption history.” County of Klamath v. Ricard, 317 Or App 608, 612 , 507 P3d 333 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).4 4 When interpreting agency rules, “[w]e defer to [an] agency’s plausible interpretation of its own rule, including an interpretation made in the course of applying the rule, if that interpretation is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law.” Harris v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards, 287 O

2025Accordingly, “we con- sider the text of the rule and its context, including other portions of the rule and related laws, and the rule’s adoption history.” County of Klamath v. Ricard, 317 Or App 608, 612 , 507 P3d 333 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).4 4 When interpreting agency rules, “[w]e defer to [an] agency’s plausible interpretation of its own rule, including an interpretation made in the course of applying the rule, if that interpretation is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law.” Harris v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards, 287 O

2024See Wright v. PERB, 292 Or App 538, 548 , 425 P3d 442 (2018) (rule interpretation advanced through appellate argument was not the type of interpre- tation that is entitled to deference); OR-OSHA v. Loy Clark Pipeline Co., 320 Or App 205, 210 , 514 P3d 544 , rev den, 370 Or 471 (2022) (stating “that deference is owed only to the authority that promulgated the rule, not to interpreta- tions made by those without policy-making authority”).

2024See Wright v. PERB, 292 Or App 538, 548 , 425 P3d 442 (2018) (rule interpretation advanced through appellate argument was not the type of interpre- tation that is entitled to deference); OR-OSHA v. Loy Clark Pipeline Co., 320 Or App 205, 210 , 514 P3d 544 , rev den, 370 Or 471 (2022) (stating “that deference is owed only to the authority that promulgated the rule, not to interpreta- tions made by those without policy-making authority”).

2008Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P2d 119 (1994); Papas, 213 Or App at 377 ; Goin, 203 Or App at 763-64 .

2008Don’t Waste Oregon Com., 320 Or at 142 ; Papas, 213 Or App at 377 ; Goin, 203 Or App at 763-64 .

2025Put differently, “[a]t a minimum, * * * the state must make some showing as to measures that are specifi- cally identified during the course of the hearing—either a showing that it has exhausted those measures or a basis on which to conclude that the measures are not reasonably available for producing the witness.” Id. at 21 .

2022When weighing the costs and benefits of taking or omitting an action in the course of a defense, counsel must make that decision with an “ ‘appropriate consideration of the risks and benefits.’ ” 668 Jaynes v. Cain Farmer, 363 Or at 699 (quoting Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or 1, 27 , 322 P3d 487 (2014) (emphasis in Farmer)).

2022When weighing the costs and benefits of taking or omitting an action in the course of a defense, counsel must make that decision with an “ ‘appropriate consideration of the risks and benefits.’ ” 668 Jaynes v. Cain Farmer, 363 Or at 699 (quoting Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or 1, 27 , 322 P3d 487 (2014) (emphasis in Farmer)).

2021At issue here is LCDC’s interpretation of Goal 14, which, as noted above, was “adopted and amended by LCDC pursuant to its general authority to do so.” 1000 Friends, 292 Or at 744 .

2021Id. at 495-96 .

2021From this limited record, we cannot conclude that father was provided adequate notice Cite as 310 Or App 80 (2021) 93 that facts pertaining to his current alcohol consumption were a part of the jurisdictional basis—especially a basis that explicitly rejected an allegation based on “behavior.” If a juvenile court erroneously relied on facts extrin- sic to the jurisdictional bases to continue jurisdiction, the remedy is for the judgment to be reversed and remanded so the juvenile court can reconsider the motion to dismiss with- out reliance on those extrinsic facts.

2021See Iliaifar, 160 Or App at 122 (injuries can be work related even if they occur in the performance of duties that are off the employer’s premises and not within the claimant’s typical job duties); Andrews v. Tektronix, Inc., 323 Or 154, 162-63 , 915 P2d 972 (1996) (in light of no-fault nature of workers’ compensation law, misconduct on the job relating to the method of accomplishing the work task does not take task beyond the course of employment).

2021See Iliaifar, 160 Or App at 122 (injuries can be work related even if they occur in the performance of duties that are off the employer’s premises and not within the claimant’s typical job duties); Andrews v. Tektronix, Inc., 323 Or 154, 162-63 , 915 P2d 972 (1996) (in light of no-fault nature of workers’ compensation law, misconduct on the job relating to the method of accomplishing the work task does not take task beyond the course of employment).

2018In the course of its analysis, the court noted that at least some of the "evidence proffered by the state undoubtedly was relevant for a nonpropensity purpose." Id. at 376 , 393 P.3d 235 .

2018In the course of its analysis, the court noted that at least some of the "evidence proffered by the state undoubtedly was relevant for a nonpropensity purpose." Id. at 376 , 393 P.3d 235 .

2015Finally, “the focus of our review is on the issues presented on appeal that have been preserved before LCDC.” 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 244 Or App 239, 268 , 259 P3d 1021 (2011) (1000 Friends of Oregon (McMinnville)).

2015Finally, “the focus of our review is on the issues presented on appeal that have been preserved before LCDC.” 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 244 Or App 239, 268 , 259 P3d 1021 (2011) (1000 Friends of Oregon (McMinnville)).

2015In the course of our analysis, we distinguished Gherasim, 329 Or at 188 , a case in which the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court should have admitted an expert opinion that “the victim likely suffered from dissociative amnesia and explained that, as a result, her capacity to remember what had occurred on the night she was assaulted was impaired.” Nichols, 252 Or App at 121 .

2015In the course of our analysis, we distinguished Gherasim, 329 Or at 188 , a case in which the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court should have admitted an expert opinion that “the victim likely suffered from dissociative amnesia and explained that, as a result, her capacity to remember what had occurred on the night she was assaulted was impaired.” Nichols, 252 Or App at 121 .

2015“Although a trial court’s decision whether to modify a judgment under ORS 138.083 is discretionary, Lewallen, 262 Or App at 56-57 , the exercise of discretion based on a mistaken premise of law can be a failure to properly exercise discretion.

2012The provisions of the CBA that defendant asserts require “interpretation” are merely general provisions that might be consulted in the course of the claim, but that do not require interpretation to determine plaintiffs claim. 6 See Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 US 107, 124 , 114 S Ct 2068 , 129 L Ed 2d 93 (1994) (for purposes of the LMRA, mere reference to the provisions of a CBA does not amount to an “interpretation”).

2012The provisions of the CBA that defendant asserts require “interpretation” are merely general provisions that might be consulted in the course of the claim, but that do not require interpretation to determine plaintiffs claim. 6 See Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 US 107, 124 , 114 S Ct 2068 , 129 L Ed 2d 93 (1994) (for purposes of the LMRA, mere reference to the provisions of a CBA does not amount to an “interpretation”).