Chapter 174

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 32 WLR 1 (1996); 34 WLR 219 (1998); 97 OLR 585 (2019)

      174.010

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Where statutes are clear in their terms, there is no need to, rather it is improper to, proceed with the application of rules of statutory construction. State v. Hiller, 22 Or App 57, 537 P2d 571 (1975); Schoning and Schoning, 106 Or App 399, 807 P2d 820 (1991)

      Statutory construction is nothing more than judicial process of discerning and declaring intent of legislature. Fifth Ave. Corp. v. Washington County, 282 Or 591, 581 P2d 50 (1978)

      Definitional section in statute is assertion that when defined word appears in operative sections of statute it has been used in full awareness of definition given it for that statute, but this assertion applies only to term actually defined and not necessarily to all cognate and related forms of same term. Chapman Bros. v. Miles-Hiatt Investments, 282 Or 643, 580 P2d 540 (1978)

      Where legislature or administrative agency uses particular term in one provision, but omits term from related provision, term is considered not to apply to related provision. Perlenfein and Perlenfein, 316 Or 16, 848 P2d 604 (1993)

      To extent required to resolve ambiguity, consideration is given in successive stages to: 1) text of statute and context provided by simultaneously enacted provisions in light of applicable rules of statutory construction; 2) legislative history; and 3) general maxims of statutory construction. PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 859 P2d 1143 (1993)

      Interpretive principles and methodology applicable to statutes are also applicable to administrative rules. Pilgrim v. Clatskanie People’s Utility District, 149 Or App 234, 942 P2d 821 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Authority of Commission for Child Care to award grants to newly established child care information and referral services, (1989) Vol 46, p 133

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 21 EL 149 (1991); 70 OLR 943 (1991); 28 WLR 223 (1992); 31 WLR 179 (1995); 34 WLR 219 (1998); 97 OLR 585 (2019)

      174.020

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Statutory construction is nothing more than judicial process of discerning and declaring intent of legislature. Fifth Ave. Corp. v. Washington County, 282 Or 591, 581 P2d 50 (1978)

      Statute should not be construed to ascribe to legislature intent to produce unreasonable or absurd result. State v. Galligan, 312 Or 35, 816 P2d 601 (1991)

      To extent required to resolve ambiguity, consideration is given in successive stages to: 1) text of statute and context provided by simultaneously enacted provisions in light of applicable rules of statutory construction; 2) legislative history; and 3) general maxims of statutory construction. PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 859 P2d 1143 (1993)

      Case law interpreting related statute relates back in time to form part of context within which legislation was passed. Gaston v. Parsons, 318 Or 247, 864 P2d 1319 (1994)

      Court must consider legislative history offered by party, but weight to be accorded legislative history is determined by court. State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 206 P3d 1042 (2009)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 61 OLR 421 (1982); 31 WLR 179 (1995); 32 WLR 1 (1996); 76 OLR 47 (1997); 44 WLR 615 (2008); 97 OLR 585 (2019)

      174.030

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 31 WLR 179 (1995)

      174.040

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Where statute as amended served dual purpose, correct remedy was one preserving dominant intent of legislature at time of amendment. City University v. Oregon Office of Educ. Policy, 320 Or 422, 885 P2d 701 (1994)

      174.060

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      This section does not apply to interpretation of statutes that refer to non-Oregon law. State v. Charlesworth/Parks, 151 Or App 100, 951 P2d 153 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

      174.120

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Exclusion of first day and inclusion of last day in computing time does not act as additional extension to period calculation under ORS 131.145. State v. Chatfield, 148 Or App 13, 939 P2d 55 (1997)

      Commencing of action within time set by ORS chapter 12 statutes of limitation constitutes act that is “to be done, as provided in civil . . . procedure statutes.” Stupek v. Wyle Laboratories Corp., 327 Or 433, 963 P2d 678 (1998)

      This section requires excluding day upon which precipitating event that triggers timeline to begin, but does not permit any other precipitating event to delay beginning of timeline. Gregg v. Dept. of Rev., 23 OTR 75 (2018); Orth v. Dept. of Rev., 23 OTR 81 (2018)

      174.130

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Authority of budget committee or governing body to adopt rules for quorum in supplemental budget proceedings, (1978) Vol 38, p 1935

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 53 OLR 352 (1974)

      174.540

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Captions and headings published in Oregon Revised Statutes are not part of the statute and are of no value in determining legislative intent. Mitchell v. Board of Education of School Dist. 30-44-63J, 64 Or App 565, 669 P2d 356 (1983), Sup Ct review denied