Godfrey v. Fred Meyer Stores
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
| Citation | Godfrey v. Fred Meyer Stores, 136 P.3d 742, 340 Or. 672 (Or. 2006) |
| Decision Date | 23 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. S53259.,S53259. |
| Parties | GODFREY v. FRED MEYER STORES |
Petition for review denied.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
21 cases
-
Schmidt v. Archdiocese of Portland
...though not dispositive at PGE's second level, may be highly probative." (Brackets in original; footnotes omitted.) See also Godfrey, 202 Or.App. at 689, 124 P.3d 621 ("In evaluating competing plausible interpretations of a statute, we are counseled to adopt the construction that is the one ......
-
State v. Rodriguez
...important to emphasize how little it takes to demonstrate that a statute is "ambiguous." As we explained in Godfrey v. Fred Meyer Stores, 202 Or.App. 673, 686, 124 P.3d 621 (2005), rev. den., 340 Or. 672, 136 P.3d 742 "[T]he threshold of ambiguity is a low one. It does not require that comp......
-
State v. Woods
..., 247 Or. App. 572, 579, 270 P.3d 362 (2012), rev. on other grounds , 353 Or. 565, 303 P.3d 929 (2013) ; Godfrey v. Fred Meyer Stores , 202 Or. App. 673, 680, 124 P.3d 621 (2005), rev. den. , 340 Or. 672, 136 P.3d 742 (2006) ("Ordinarily, dictum —even Oregon Supreme Court dictum —about the ......
-
State v. Rodriguez-Barrera
...rule of PGE that resort to legislative history is not necessary in the absence of an ambiguity. See, e.g., Godfrey v. Fred Meyer Stores, 202 Or.App. 673, 676, 124 P.3d 621 (2005), rev. den., 340 Or. 672, 136 P.3d 742 (2006) (citing PGE for rule that we resort to legislative history only "if......
Get Started for Free
