Astleford v. SAIF Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a disputed claim settlement agreement entered into without participation by an affected “party” must be vacated for that reason
• noting that the expansion clause has been invoked to “to arrive at an answer that best comported with the legislative intent of the scheme as a whole”
• although definition section of Workers’ Compensation Law applies “[ejxcept where the context otherwise requires,” court concluded that the particular context at issue in that case did not require another definition
• under ORS 656.003, a given statutory definition does not apply when the context, which includes the structure and purpose of the workers' compensation system as a whole, demonstrates that the use of the definition would be inappropriate
• under ORS 656.003, a given statutory definition does not apply when the context, which includes the structure and purpose of the workers’ compensation system as a whole, demonstrates that the use of the definition would be inappropriate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).