Legal Opinion · Dissent

Haskins v. Employment Department

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 30, 1998No. EAB 96-AB-199; CA A96295Published

1DissentWollheim, J.

Citing Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 881 P2d 119 (1994), the majority has chosen to defer to an Employment Department interpretation of OAR, 471-040-0005. However, under the criteria established in that case for interpreting agency rules, I find the department’s interpretation neither plausible nor consistent with the context of the rule, and therefore respectfully dissent.

This court is authorized to overrule an agency’s interpretation of a rule if the agency has “erroneously interpreted a provision of law.” ORS 183.482(8)(a). Pursuant to Don’t Waste Oregon,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Don't Waste Oregon Committee v. Energy Facility Siting CouncilOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State v. GuzekOregon Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Rogers v. RobertsOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  4. In Re Demaris' EstateOregon Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Toon v. Wapinitia Irrigation Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1926

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API