Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Icenhower v. SAIF Corp.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided March 20, 2002No. 98-10087; A110770Published
1ConcurrenceWollheim, J.
I write separately to concur because the majority unnecessarily reaches an issue of statutory construction that is inconsistent with our holding in Corona v. Pacific Resource Recycling, 125 Or App 47, 865 P2d 407 (1993), and OAR 436-060-0155(6). This case should be resolved on narrower grounds that are consistent with Corona.
In adopting ORS 656.262(11)(a), did the legislature intend that proceedings that were initially properly before *308the Hearings Division be dismissed if, at some point thereafter, the imposition of penalties under ORS 656.262(11)(a) becomes the only remaining issue? 180 Or…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- Don't Waste Oregon Committee v. Energy Facility Siting CouncilOregon Supreme Court · 1994
- SAIF Corp. v. ShipleyOregon Supreme Court · 1998
- Oliver v. Norstar, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
- Arlington Education Ass'n v. Arlington School District No. 3Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.