Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Western Communications, Inc. v. Deschutes County
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided March 14, 1990No. 87-CV-0403-WE; CA A48793Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJoseph, C. J.
The majority wins, and permanently retires, the Circulating Award for Most Creative (and Absurd) Use of Legislative History. It says: “The legislature intended that [the amendment of ORS 192.502 by Or Laws 1989, ch 925, § 1] apply to this case.” 100 Or App 710. If the legislature had expressed itself explicitly, we would not have this dispute. All that the majority is able to cite as proof of legislative intent is the ambiguous testimony of the senator who sponsored the amendment and the apparently confused response by a representative who was a member of the committee. Even on that *715record,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-FonsecaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
- Berry Transport, Inc. v. HeltzelOregon Supreme Court · 1954
- State Ex Rel. Cox v. Davidson Industries, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1981