Loading…
Opinion
2001 Ore. LEXIS 13 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2001
Full text
Arleen E. WADDILL, on Review v. ANCHOR HOCKING, INC., a Delaware Corporation, on Review
Opinions in this case
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 18, 2024
Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 17, 2021
Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2020
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 9, 2019
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 5, 2018
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 26, 2018
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 2015
Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 14, 2014
Parentheticals
holding that a party’s motion did not meet the speci- ficity requirements of ORCP 21 A when the motion “neither referred to ORCP 21 A(8) nor worded its objection to resem- ble the wording contained in that rule”
applying the maxim of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius [the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other] at first level of statutory construction
only if a rule of civil procedure was amended or adopted by the legislature is the proper focus the intentions of the legislature
defense enumerated in ORCP 21 G may not be raised for the first time on appeal
the expression of three instances in which a defense may be asserted implies an intent to limit the assertion of the defense to only those three circumstances
defense enumerated in ORCP 21 G may not be raised for the first time on appeal
“unless the legislature amended the rule at issue in a particular case in a manner that affects the issues in that case, the Council’s intent governs the interpretation of the rule”
“[U]nless the legislature amended the rule at issue in a particular case in a manner that affects the issues in that case, the Council’s intent governs the interpretation of the rule.”
"[U]nless the legislature amended the rule at issue in a particular case in a manner that affects the issues in that case, the Council's intent governs the interpretation of the rule."
“[T]his court has determined that a party may raise [the defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction] at any time, including for the first time on appeal.”
“[U]nless the legislature amended the rule at issue in a particular case in a manner that affects the issues in that case, the Council’s intent governs the interpretation of the rule.”
explain- ing that, in general, we construe provisions of the ORCP through the same methodology that we employ to construe statutes, in that we look first to the text and context of the rule
