Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.010
General rule for construction of statutes
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
174.010 General rule for construction of statutes. In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,128
cases (176 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: State v. McNally
State v. McNally (2017)
“See ORS 174.010 (“In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted[.”
Owens v. Maass (1996)
“The state's proposed interpretation of section 5 conflicts with the general rule of construction contained in ORS 174.010, which provides that, when construing a legislative enactment, this court may not "insert what has been omitted" nor "omit what has been inserted.”
Jones v. General Motors Corp. (1997)
“Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993) (stating standards for interpreting legislation); ORS 174.010. 5 Specifically, we must determine whether the legislature intended, under the circumstances of a summary judgment proceeding, to shift the burden…”
State v. Clemente-Perez (2015)
“The state has not Cite as 357 Or 745 (2015) 755 argued that construing “within any vehicle” to modify “per- son” would impair the meaning of the sentence, and we do not perceive any such impairment.”
Young v. State (1999)
“]" ORS 174.010 (emphasis added); PGE, 317 Or.”
Clackamas County v. Gay (1997)
“" ORS 174.010. Defendants concede that, by its terms, ORS 836.”
State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela (2015)
“7 According to the state, defendant’s reading therefore violates ORS 174.010, which states: “In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or…”
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries (1993)
“In trying to ascertain the meaning of a statutory provision, and thereby to inform the court’s inquiry into legislative intent, the court considers rules of construction of the statutory text that bear directly on how to read the text. Some of those rules are mandated by…”
State v. Moen (1990)
“As if to prove the point, the court cites ORS 174.010, correctly summarizes that statute as providing "a general direction not to add to the terms of a statute," but then immediately erases the clear meaning of that statute by calling it merely one of the "useful tools for…”
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Ashley (1991)
“ORS 174.010; Whipple v. Howser, 291 Or. 475, 479 , 632 P.”
Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co. (2017)
“The majority’s first error is in defining the word “expenses” to mean “a cost[ ] to secure a benefit” but then reading that word and its meaning out of its interpretation of the phrase. That error violates the tenet of statutory con- struction that requires that the court give…”
In the Matter of Marriage of Petersen and Petersen (1994)
“ORS 174.010 says that the office of a judge is "simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted * * *.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.010(1)(a) — 1 case
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.