State v. Mayes

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that we will seek to avoid construing a statute in a manner that tends to defeat its purpose
• reasoning that, when interpreting a statute, we “give effect to all relevant provisions” and assume that “the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments * * * to be meaningless surplusage”
• \We are obliged to construe the statute so as to give effect to all relevant provisions\ and therefore assume \that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments * * * to be meaningless surplusage.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Parra-Sanchez
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2023-03-22· cited 13×
• State v. Hardges
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2018-10-17· cited 9×
• Department of Human Services v. D. J.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2013-11-27· cited 8×
• English Ex Rel. Sellers v. Multnomah County
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-06-10· cited 5×
• Department of Human Services v. A. E. R.
  Wasco County Circuit Court, Oregon· 2016-05-18· cited 5×
• Angle v. Bd. of Dentistry
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2018-10-17· cited 4×
• Powell's Books, Inc. v. Myers
  D. Oregon· 2008-12-12· cited 3×
• Saif Corp. v. Siegrist (In re Comp. of Siegrist)
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2019-04-24· cited 2×
• Johnson v. Driver & Motor Vehicles Services Division
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-03-26