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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.127 (2026)

Singular or plural number; masculine, feminine or neuter gender

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

      174.127 Singular or plural number; masculine, feminine or neuter gender. As used in the statute laws of this state:

      (1) The singular number may include the plural and the plural number, the singular.

      (2) Words used in the masculine gender may include the feminine and the neuter. [Formerly 174.110]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Kinzua Resources v. DEQ, 468 P.3d 410 (Or. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kinzua Resources v. DEQ, 468 P.3d 410 (Or. 2020). “7 Petitioners do not contend that the legislature’s reference to “the person” should be understood as referring only to a single person for any one disposal site, and we do not understand the usage to convey that significance.”
State v. Uroza-Zuniga, 439 P.3d 973 (Or. 2019). “" ORS 174.127(1). And if the argument is that "all public places" is not really a place at all, it is a least **690 composed of "places," in all of which drinking may be prohibited provided that the prohibition is general.”
State v. Leak, 998 A.2d 1182 (Conn. 2010). “3d 426 (“we note that [ Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.127 (1)] states that, in construing Oregon statutes, ‘the singular number may include the plural and the plural number, the singular’ ”), review denied, 335 Or.”
State v. Brooks, 67 P.3d 426 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “) In that regard, we note that ORS 174.127(1) states that, in construing Oregon statutes, “[t]he singular number may include the plural and the plural number, the singular.”
Smith v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 356 P.3d 158 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “Had the legislature intended the joint promulgation to result in a single administrative rule, it could have worded the statute specifically to require that different grammatical structure. 1 Moreover, the legislature *499 has specifically cautioned that, in interpreting its…”
Kragt v. Bd. of Parole, 563 P.3d 359 (Or. 2025). “See ORS 174.127(1) (in statutes, “[t]he singular number may include the plural and the plural number, the singular”).”
State ex rel. Hoyle v. City of Grants Pass, 443 P.3d 628 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “In fact, one seemingly applicable such rule, ORS 174.127(1), further obscures the legislature's objective in choosing the plural form by instructing us that, generally *655 speaking, the statutory use of "[t]he singular number may include the plural and the plural number, the…”
State v. Ferguson, 323 P.3d 496 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “100(5) (“person” includes individuals, corporations, associations, firms, partnerships, limited liability companies, and joint stock companies); ORS 174.127(1) (the singular number may include the plural).”
Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2020). “715(3)(b) and the accompanying rule, OAR 150-317-0630(2),8 support that reading.”
ABC Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2020). “” ORS 174.127(1); see also School Dist No 1 v.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.127(1) — 9 cases
Kinzua Resources v. DEQ, 468 P.3d 410 (Or. 2020). “7 Petitioners do not contend that the legislature’s reference to “the person” should be understood as referring only to a single person for any one disposal site, and we do not understand the usage to convey that significance.”
State v. Uroza-Zuniga, 439 P.3d 973 (Or. 2019). “" ORS 174.127(1). And if the argument is that "all public places" is not really a place at all, it is a least **690 composed of "places," in all of which drinking may be prohibited provided that the prohibition is general.”
State v. Brooks, 67 P.3d 426 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “) In that regard, we note that ORS 174.127(1) states that, in construing Oregon statutes, “[t]he singular number may include the plural and the plural number, the singular.”
Smith v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 356 P.3d 158 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “Had the legislature intended the joint promulgation to result in a single administrative rule, it could have worded the statute specifically to require that different grammatical structure. 1 Moreover, the legislature *499 has specifically cautioned that, in interpreting its…”
Kragt v. Bd. of Parole, 563 P.3d 359 (Or. 2025). “See ORS 174.127(1) (in statutes, “[t]he singular number may include the plural and the plural number, the singular”).”
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.