<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>OregonStatutes.biz</title>
	<link>http://www.oregonstatutes.biz</link>
	<description>Legislative Research &#38; Writing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:03:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	<!-- generator="WordPress/3.2.1" -->

	<item>
		<title>&#8220;Clear and Express&#8221; Terms in Oral Insurance Binder Supercede Written Policy</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Stuart v. Pittman, 350 Or 410 (2011) 1)&#160;&#160;&#160;When construing a statute, Courts give words of common usage their plain, natural, and, ordinary meaning. at pp. 418-19. 2)&#160;&#160;&#160;According to applicable statute, to supercede written policy, an oral insurance binder must use “clear and express” terms. The common usage of the word clear means easily understood, and [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.oregonstatutes.biz/uncategorized/clear-and-express-terms-in-oral-insurance-binder-supercede-written-policy/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Mental Disease or Defect can be a Defense in Crimes Requiring Recklessness</title>
		<description><![CDATA[State v. Nebert, 244 OrApp 80 (2011) 1)&#160;&#160;&#160;“(* * * 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)&#160;&#160;&#160;The word intent is not defined in the criminal code, and [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.oregonstatutes.biz/uncategorized/mental-disease-or-defect-can-be-a-defense-in-crimes-requiring-recklessness/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Defendant who Pleaded &#8220;No Contest&#8221; can Still Appeal Sentence in Certain Situations</title>
		<description><![CDATA[State v. Donahue, 243 OrApp 520 (2011) &#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;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.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.oregonstatutes.biz/uncategorized/618/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Legislative Testimony of Industry Proponents can be Used to Discern Legislative Intent</title>
		<description><![CDATA[State v. Wray, 243 OrApp 503 (2011) 1)&#160;&#160;&#160;“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)&#160;&#160;&#160;When construing a statute, Courts give words of common usage their plain, natural, and, ordinary meaning. at [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.oregonstatutes.biz/uncategorized/624/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>For Statutory Purposes, &#8220;Cohabit&#8221; Means More Than Simply Living at the Same Address</title>
		<description><![CDATA[State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. C.M.C., 243 OrApp 335 (2011) 1)&#160;&#160;&#160;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. 2)&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;For purposes of statutory construction, the word cohabit does not simply mean living in [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.oregonstatutes.biz/uncategorized/for-statutory-purposes-cohabit-means-more-than-simply-living-at-the-same-address/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Violation of Either &#8220;Failure to Perform&#8221; Laws may Mean Restitution for Damage of any Kind</title>
		<description><![CDATA[State v. Bassett, 243 OrApp 289 (2011) 1)&#160;&#160;&#160;The context of a statute includes prior judicial constructions of the statute. (cites omitted). at p. 294. 2)&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;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. [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.oregonstatutes.biz/uncategorized/642/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>State Failed to Comply With Unambiguous Requirements of Restitution Statute</title>
		<description><![CDATA[State v. McLaughlin, 243 OrApp 214 (2011) 1)&#160;&#160; &#160;When presented with a question of statutory construction, a Court first looks “at the text and context of the statutes, and will consider legislative history if it appears useful to the court’s analysis.” (citing, State v. Gaines). at p. 218. 2)&#160;&#160; &#160;The restitution statute unambiguously requires the [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.oregonstatutes.biz/uncategorized/476/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Whether Laws are Statutory Counterparts Question of Statutory Construction</title>
		<description><![CDATA[State v. Donovan, 243 OrApp 187 (2011) 1)&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;When faced with a question of statutory construction, Oregon Courts “examine the text of the relevant statutes in context, along with any pertinent legislative history.” (citing, State v. Gaines). at p. 191. 2)&#160;&#160;&#160;Whether another jurisdiction’s statute is a “statutory counterpart” is a question of statutory construction. at p [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.oregonstatutes.biz/uncategorized/whether-laws-are-statutory-counterparts-question-of-statutory-construction/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Changes in Text from One Session to Another Part of the Context for Interpretation</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Eusiquio v. Dept. of Human Services, 243 OrApp 100 (2011) 1)&#160;&#160;&#160; Wording changes made in statute from one session to another are part of the context within which the statute is construed. at p. 112. 2)&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Fact that 1997 amendments to the relevant statute removed any reference to the APA and added a requirement that the [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.oregonstatutes.biz/uncategorized/changes-in-text-from-one-session-to-another-part-of-the-context-for-interpretation/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Since Legislative History Suggests no Latent Ambiguity, Plain Reading Will Prevail</title>
		<description><![CDATA[State v. Tyson, 243 OrApp 94 (2011) 1)&#160;&#160;&#160; When presented with “a question of statutory construction * * * we examine the text of the statute in context and in light of any pertinent legislative history proffered by the parties to determine the legislature’s intent.” (citing, State v. Gaines). at pp. 96-97. 2)&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Statute makes it [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.oregonstatutes.biz/uncategorized/since-legislative-history-suggests-no-latent-ambiguity-it-will-be-ignored/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>

