Monday, June 27th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Stuart v. Pittman, 350 Or 410 (2011)
Holding: Applicable statute requires, that to supercede coverage spelled out in the written policy, an oral insurance binder must use “clear and express” terms. Here, that test is met.
1) When construing a statute, Courts give words of common usage their plain, natural, and, ordinary meaning. at pp. 418-19.
2) The common usage of the word “clear” means easily understood, and the term “express” means directly and distinctly stated as opposed to implied or left to inference. at p. 419.
3) “(T)he terms ‘safety net’ or ‘catch basin’ or coverage ‘in all instances that something goes wrong during construction’ were not vague or obscure.” at p. 419.
Sunday, June 26th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
State v. Nebert, 244 OrApp 80 (2011)
Holding: A defendant charged with a crime requiring proof of a reckless mental state may offer evidence of a mental disease or defect sufficient to negate that element.
1) “(* * * the paramount goal in statutory interpretation is discerning the legislature’s intent, which is accomplished by first examining statutory text and context, along with any useful legislative history).” explaining, State v. Gaines. at p. 83.
2) The word “intent” is not defined in the criminal code, and has so many meanings in common usage that a statute using the word can only be interpreted by resorting to legislative history. at p. 84.
3) A statement made to the Criminal Law Revision Commission by one of its reporters, as well as that reporter’s comments to the Senate Committee considering the proposed revision, is part of this statute’s legislative history. at pp. 84-85.
4) Commentary to the Criminal Law Revision Commission’s Proposed Oregon Criminal Code is part of this statute’s legislative history. at pp. 84-85.
Saturday, June 25th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
State v. Donahue, 243 OrApp 520 (2011)
Holding: A plain reading of the applicable statute shows that, even though she pleaded no contest, the defendant can appeal the order that imposed a condition of her probation where, as here, she has shown a colorable claim of error in the sentencing proceedings. at p. 525.
Friday, June 24th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
State v. Wray, 243 OrApp 503 (2011)
Holding: Even the slide fence protecting track adjacent to the track where the trains actually operate can be property used in the provision of a benefit to the public.
1) “When construing a statute, we examine the text of the statute in context, along with any relevant legislative history, to discern the legislature’s intent.” citing State v. Gaines. at p. 506.
2) When construing a statute, Courts give words of common usage their plain, natural, and, ordinary meaning. at p. 507.
3) As used in the applicable statute, the phrase “used in * * * service to the public” means “property used in the provision of a benefit to the public.” at p. 507.
4) As used in the applicable statute, the term “direct” means “property closely related to or immediately used in the provision of transportation to the public.” at p. 508.
5) Testimony of industry proponents of the bill can be used to discern legislative intent. at pp. 509-11.
Thursday, June 23rd, 2011 at 10:08 pm
State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. C.M.C., 243 OrApp 335 (2011)
Holding: For purposes of statutory construction, the word cohabit does not simply mean living in the same residence, but means two unmarried persons living together as spouses.
1) When construing a statute, Courts give words of common usage their plain, natural, and, ordinary meaning, but, when words have a well-defined legal meaning, such meaning controls. at p. 339.
Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011 at 10:15 pm
State v. Bassett, 243 OrApp 289 (2011)
Holding: There are two statutes addressing failure to perform the duties of a driver, one where the accident results in property damage, and, a second where the accident results in personal injury. Use of the disjunctive or in the restitution statute that follows indicates that defendants may be held responsible for any and all damages regardless of which statute they are convicted of violating.
1) The context of a statute includes prior judicial constructions of the statute. (cites omitted). at p. 294.
2) “* * * nothing in (the) related statutory context or the barren legislative history contradicts” (internal footnote omitted) the plain reading of the statute. at p. 295.