Loading…

State v. Stamper — freecase.ai

Search Pricing About Why now Resources Guides

Opinion

State v. Stamper

339 Or. 230 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 23, 2005

Full text

State v. Stamper

119 P.3d 790 (2005) 339 Or. 230 STATE v. STAMPER. No. S52563. Supreme Court of Oregon. August 23, 2005. Petition for review denied.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Not listed
Cluster ID: 2587745

Citations

339 Or. 230
2005 Ore. LEXIS 524
119 P.3d 790

Cited by

State v. Lively
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 10, 2018
Timmermann v. Herman
Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 2, 2018
State v. Civil
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 11, 2017
State v. Breshears
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 12, 2016
Liu v. Portland State University
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 2016
State v. Villagomez
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 14, 2016
State v. Bowen
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 31, 2016
State v. Bernhardt
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 27, 2016
Department of Human Services v. K. W.
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 16, 2015

© 2026 freecase.aicontact@freecase.aiBuilt by lawyers. Powered by AI.

Freecase.ai provides legal information for educational and research purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult a licensed attorney for legal guidance. Terms of Service

Bernard v. S.B., Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 6, 2015

Sundermier v. State ex rel. Public Employees Retirement System

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 11, 2015

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 29, 2014

Parentheticals

observing that “we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage”
State v. C. C.
noting that “we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage”
Bernard v. S.B., Inc.
explaining that we generally assume that the legislature “did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage”
State v. Villagomez
“[W]e assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.”
State v. Civil
“we are hesitant to ascribe to the Legislative Assembly as a whole the single remark of a single nonlegislator at a committee hearing”
State v. Kelly
“As a general rule, we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.”
Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County
“As a general rule, we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.”
Pete's Mountain Homeowners Ass'n v. Oregon Water Resources Department
“we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage”
Certain Underwriters v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance
“[W]e assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage”
State v. Bowen
“[W]e are hesitant to ascribe to the Legislative Assembly as a whole the single remark of a single nonlegislator at a committee hearing.”
Suchi v. SAIF Corp.
“As a general rule, we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.”
Department of Human Services v. B. A. S.
“As a general rule, we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage.”
State v. Donovan