Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.030 (2026)

Construction favoring natural right to prevail

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      174.030 Construction favoring natural right to prevail. Where a statute is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to prevail.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1954–1999 · leading case: Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 859 P.2d 1143 (Or. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 859 P.2d 1143 (Or. 1993). “, ORS 174.030 (natural rights), others more commonly maybe found in case law.”
Linn-Benton-Lincoln Educ. Ass'n/OEA/NEA v. Linn-Benton-Lincoln ESD, 989 P.2d 25 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “[7] We are mindful of the criticisms that flow from a judicial search for legislative purpose at the third level of analysis under PGE .”
State of Oregon v. Kuhnhausen, 272 P.2d 225 (Or. 1954). “Section 2-223, OCLA (ORS 174.030) provides: "Where a statute is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right, and the other against it, the former is to prevail.”
Landgraver v. Emanuel Lutheran Charity Bd., Inc., 280 P.2d 301 (Or. 1955). “" ORS 174.030. It follows that the public policy of nonliability of charitable corporations for tort which we have previously espoused in the name of the trust fund doctrine is not based upon a public policy declared by the legislature, but is rather, the product of judicial…”
State v. Stuart, 442 P.2d 231 (Or. 1968). · cites it 2× “" ORS 174.030 "Where a statute is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to prevail.”
Cadle Co. II v. Schellman, 868 P.2d 773 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “To begin our analysis, we note that words in a statute are given their plain, natural and ordinary meaning and are to be considered in context with other provisions of the same statute and the entire statutory scheme.”
McAlmond v. Myers, 500 P.2d 457 (Or. 1972). “" ORS 174.030 provides: "Where a statute is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to prevail.”
Buell v. State Indus. Accident Comm'n, 395 P.2d 442 (Or. 1964). “ORS 174.030 requires a construction of ambiguous statutory language that will favor “natural right” and the avoidance of harsh results.”
State ex rel. Roberts v. McConville, 797 P.2d 365 (Or. 1990). “” ORS 174.030 provides: “Where a statute is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to prevail.”
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.