SHASTA VIEW IRRIGATION v. Amoco Chemicals
Decision Date | 29 July 1999 |
Citation | 986 P.2d 536,329 Or. 151 |
Parties | SHASTA VIEW IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, v. AMOCO CHEMICALS CORPORATION; Amoco Chemical Company, a corporation a/k/a Amoco Chemical Corp; Amoco Reinforced Plastics Company, Defendants. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
James M. Duncan, of Perlman & Duncan, Bakersfield, California, filed the brief and argued the cause for plaintiff. With him on the brief was Stanley C. Jones, Jr., of Boivin Jones Uerlings DiIaconi & Oden PC, Klamath Falls.
Roy Pulvers, of Lindsay, Hart, Neil & Weigler, LLP, Portland, argued the cause for defendants. With him on the brief were Jerard S. Weigler, Portland, and Randall S. Henderson, Pasadena, California.
Jas. Adams, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed a brief for amicus curiae State of Oregon. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
James N. Gardner, of Gardner & Gardner, Portland, and William N. Stiles, of Sussman Shank Wapnick Caplan & Stiles, LLP, Portland, filed a brief for amici curiae Associated Oregon Industries, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and Oregon-Columbia Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.
Before CARSON, Chief Justice, and GILLETTE, VAN HOOMISSEN, DURHAM, KULONGOSKI, and LEESON, Justices.
This case is before the court on certified questions of Oregon law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit under ORS 28.200 et seq. and ORAP 12.20. We take the following facts from the Ninth Circuit's certification order:
The Ninth Circuit certified the following two questions to this Court:
We accepted certification of those questions and, at that time, added an additional question:
3. "If ORS 12.250 does not apply to ORS 30.905(1), then is there a common-law variation of ORS 12.250 that would apply to ORS 30.905(1) to make Shasta's action timely?"
See Western Helicopter Services v. Rogerson Aircraft, 311 Or. 361, 370-71, 811 P.2d 627 (1991)
(. ) We address the questions in order.
ORS 12.250 provides:
"Unless otherwise made applicable thereto, the limitations prescribed in this chapter shall not apply to actions brought in the name of the state, or any county, or other public corporation therein, or for its benefit."
(Emphasis added.) Shasta contends that the legislature has recognized the public nature of irrigation districts and that several statutes "confirm the general proposition that Oregon law treats irrigation districts like other [public] corporations." Furthermore, Shasta argues, there is no evidence in ORS 12.250 that the legislature intended not to extend the protection of ORS 12.250 to irrigation districts. Amoco replies that the text and context of ORS 12.250 leads to the "inescapable conclusion that irrigation districts are not one of the `other public corporation[s]' entitled to an exemption within the meaning of that statute." To answer the first certified question, we must construe the phrase, "other public corporation therein."1 The starting point of our analysis is the text and context of the statute, giving words of common usage their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning. See PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606, 610-11, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993)
(. )
Two words of common usage in ORS 12.250 modify the term "public corporation": "other" and "therein." Based on the express words of the statute, we conclude that the exemption described in ORS 12.250 applies to corporations in addition to—or other than—the state and counties that are formed for the public's benefit.
The next inquiry is whether an irrigation district is formed for the public's benefit or for a public purpose. An irrigation district is a corporation formed to foster the beneficial use of water by the public. See ORS 545.249 ( ). In Twohy Bros. Co. v. Ochoco Irr. Dist. et al, 108 Or. 1, 11, 216 P. 189 (1923), this court held that an irrigation district is a municipal corporation, because From the foregoing, we conclude that an irrigation district formed under ORS chapter 545 is a public corporation within the meaning of ORS 12.250.
We answer Certified Question No. 1 "YES."
"Does [ORS] 12.250's exemption to applicable limitations apply to [ORS] 30.905(1), a statute of ultimate repose outside of [ORS] chapter 12?"
The second certified question subsumes two issues. The first is whether the exemption in ORS 12.250 is restricted to limitations prescribed in ORS chapter 12, or whether the exemption applies outside ORS chapter 12 as well. The second issue is whether the exemption applies to ORS 30.905(1), which is a statute of ultimate repose outside ORS chapter 12.
Shasta argues that the exemption from applicable statutes of limitations applies outside ORS chapter 12, because ORS 12.250 contains a policy reflected in the Latin maxim, "nullum tempus occurrit regi," which means that "[t]ime does not run against the [sovereign]." Black's Law Dictionary at 1068. Amoco responds that resolution of the issues is a matter of statutory construction. We agree. Consequently, we turn again to the template for statutory construction, looking first to the text and context of the statute. PGE, 317 Or. at 610,859 P.2d 1143.
ORS 12.250, quoted above, consists of a single sentence. The exemption contained in that statute unambiguously refers to "the limitations...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Lombardo Bros. Mason Contractors, Inc., Nos. 18462
...courts have concluded that statutes of repose apply to the state by necessary implication. See Shasta View Irrigation District v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 329 Or. 151, 164, 986 P.2d 536 (1999) (“The public policy for exempting governments from statutes of limitations ... does not apply to sta......
-
Gladhart v. Oregon Vineyard Supply Co.
...to actions commenced before October 3, 1979. Or. Laws 1979, ch. 866, § 8. 9. Defendants also rely on Shasta View Irrigation Dist. v. Amoco Chemicals, 329 Or. 151, 986 P.2d 536 (1999), to support their contention "that the product liability statute of limitations, ORS 30.905(2), is not subje......
-
State v. Lombardo Bros. Mason Contractors, Inc.
...courts have concluded that statutes of repose apply to the state by necessary implication. See Shasta View Irrigation District v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 329 Or. 151, 164, 986 P.2d 536 (1999) ("The public policy for exempting governments from statutes of limitations . . . does not apply to s......
-
Jones v. Douglas Cnty.
...pending claims, which is analogous to the effect of the retroactive repose period in HB 3166. See Shasta View Irrigation Dist. v. Amoco Chemicals, 329 Or. 151, 162, 986 P.2d 536 (1999) (“Once an ultimate repose period has expired, the claim is extinguished and no legally cognizable injury e......
-
INTERPRETING STATE STATUTES IN FEDERAL COURT.
...certified question using the court's "well established" rules of interpretation); Shasta View Irrigation Dist. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 986 P.2d 536, 539 (Or. 1999) (answering certified question using the state's then-prevailing PGE interpretive (147) In re Hernandez, 161 N.E.3d 135, 140 (111......