171.285
Legislative Counsel certificate.
(1) When any edition of the statutes, or part or supplement designed to replace
parts of or to supplement a previous edition and to bring such edition up to
date, is published by the Legislative Counsel Committee, the Legislative
Counsel shall cause to be printed in the edition, part or supplement a
certificate that the Legislative Counsel has compared each section in such
edition, part or supplement with the original section in the enrolled bill or,
if the enrolled bill is stored in a computer or similar device, with any
printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the enrolled bill
accurately, and that, with the exception of the changes in form permitted by
ORS 173.160 and other changes specifically authorized by law, the sections in
the published edition, part or supplement are correctly copied.
(2) Any edition,
part or supplement certified as provided in subsection (1) of this section
shall constitute prima facie evidence of the law in all courts and proceedings,
and any section in such edition, part or supplement may be amended or repealed
by amending or repealing such section of the edition, part or supplement
without reference to the legislative Act from which it was derived. No
compilation of the statute laws of Oregon not bearing such certificate, or a
similar certificate of the Reviser of Statutes, shall be admissible as evidence
of the law in any court or proceeding. [Formerly 173.170; 1983 c.740 §37]
Notes of Decisions
In Re the Marriage of O'Donnell-Lamont, 67 P.3d 939 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “[1] We first discovered that the parenthetical phrase was not part of the original statute when grandparents drew our attention to that fact in their petition for reconsideration.”
Zidell Marine Corp. v. West Painting, Inc., 894 P.2d 481 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “When, as here, it appears that the law as the legislature adopted it differs in substance from the law as codified, we must follow the legislature's version." The legislative history of House Bill 2666 shows that the legislature intended that the writ of continuing garnishment…”
Mitchell v. Bd. of Educ., 669 P.2d 356 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“However, changes must be limited so that they do “not alter the sense, meaning, effect or substance of any Act.”
State v. Rothman, 687 P.2d 798 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“The statutes certified by Legislative Counsel after revision are prima facie evidence of the law, ORS 171.285(2), but they are not conclusive evidence.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 171.285(2) — 4 cases
In Re the Marriage of O'Donnell-Lamont, 67 P.3d 939 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“[1] We first discovered that the parenthetical phrase was not part of the original statute when grandparents drew our attention to that fact in their petition for reconsideration.”
Zidell Marine Corp. v. West Painting, Inc., 894 P.2d 481 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“When, as here, it appears that the law as the legislature adopted it differs in substance from the law as codified, we must follow the legislature's version." The legislative history of House Bill 2666 shows that the legislature intended that the writ of continuing garnishment…”
Mitchell v. Bd. of Educ., 669 P.2d 356 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“However, changes must be limited so that they do “not alter the sense, meaning, effect or substance of any Act.”
State v. Rothman, 687 P.2d 798 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“The statutes certified by Legislative Counsel after revision are prima facie evidence of the law, ORS 171.285(2), but they are not conclusive evidence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.