Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.003

Application of definitions to construction of chapter

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

656.003 Application of definitions to construction of chapter. Except where the context otherwise requires, the definitions given in this chapter govern its construction. [1975 c.556 §2 (enacted in lieu of 656.002)]

656.004 [Repealed by 1981 c.535 §28 (656.012 enacted in lieu of 656.004)]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 31 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case: Saif Corp. v. Allen

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Saif Corp. v. Allen (1994) or · cites it 12× “That assumption is particularly relevant here because, in the fee statute, the legislature used terms that it specially defined in ORS 656.”

Errand v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. (1995) or · cites it 8× “) ORS 656.003 provides that, "[e]xcept where the context otherwise requires, the definitions given in this chapter govern its construction.”

Astleford v. SAIF Corp. (1994) or · cites it 7× “In addition, ORS 656.003 provides that “the definitions given in this chapter govern its construction,” “[ejxcept where the context *231 otherwise requires.”

Department of Consumer & Business Services v. Muliro (2016) or “” 3 ORS 656.003 provides that, “[e]xcept where the context otherwise requires, the definitions given in this chapter govern its construction.”

Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (1985) or · cites it 2× “ORS 656.003 explains that the definitions apply except where the context otherwise requires.”

Drews v. EBI Companies (1990) or “005(6), “ ‘[c]laim’ means a written request for compensation from a subject worker or someone on the worker’s behalf, or any compensable injury of which a subject employer has notice or knowledge.”

Gadalean v. Saif Corp. (In re Comp. of Gadalean) (2019) or “010 (when construing statutes, courts may neither insert what has been omitted nor omit what has been inserted); see also ORS 656.003 ("Except where the context otherwise requires, the definitions given in this chapter govern its construction.”

Jones v. Emanuel Hospital (1977) or “ORS 656.003 provides: "Except where the context otherwise requiresthe definitions given in this chapter govern its construction.”

Garcia-Solis v. Farmers Ins. Co. (In re Comp. of Garcia-Solis) (2019) or “ORS 656.003 provides that the definitions in ORS 656.”

SAIF Corp. v. Drews (1993) or “” ORS 656.003 provides: “Except where the context otherwise requires, the definitions given in this chapter govern its construction.”

Altamirano v. Woodburn Nursery, Inc. (1995) orctapp · cites it 2× “” ORS 656.003. “[U]nder ORS 656.003, ‘the context * * * requires’ that a given statutory definition not apply when the context — including the structure and purpose of the workers’ compensation scheme as a whole — demonstrates that the use of that given definition would be…”

SAIF v. Williams (2020) orctapp “267 does not, however, explic- itly provide a standard to prove that a new/omitted medical condition claim arises out of the worker’s employment.”

Show all 31 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.003(7)(b)(B) — 1 case

Sedgwick Claims Management Services v. Norwood (2015) orctapp

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.