State v. Stamper, S52563.
| Decision Date | 23 August 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. S52563.,S52563. |
| Citation | 119 P.3d 790,339 Or. 230 |
| Parties | STATE v. STAMPER. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Petition for review denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
59 cases
-
State v. Bowen
...purposes. That construction would “give effect to all” the particular provisions in the statute. ORS 174.010 ; State v. Stamper , 197 Or.App. 413, 418, 106 P.3d 172, rev. den. , 339 Or. 230, 119 P.3d 790 (2005) (“[W]e assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments ......
-
State v. Spears, 050432456; A132447.
...we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage. ORS 174.010; State v. Stamper, 197 Or.App. 413, 418, 106 P.3d 172, rev. den., 339 Or. 230, 119 P.3d 790 We also look to the broader context of a statute, which includes prior versions o......
-
State v. Moyer
...Tire & Auto, 322 Or. 406, 415-16, 908 P.2d 300 (1995), modified on recons., 325 Or. 46, 932 P.2d 1141 (1997); State v. Stamper, 197 Or.App. 413, 420-21, 106 P.3d 172, rev. den., 339 Or. 230, 119 P.3d 790 What is now ORS 260.402 was enacted by the people in 1908 (later known as the Corrupt P......
-
Marshall v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
...of injury, the inclusion of the phrase "injury to person or property" would be wholly superfluous. See, e.g. , State v. Stamper , 197 Or. App. 413, 418, 106 P.3d 172, rev. den. , 339 Or. 230, 119 P.3d 790 (2005) ("[W]e assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments......
Request a trial to view additional results