State v. Rainey

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “whatever the legislative history may show the legis- lature intended by the enactment of a statute, the wording 78 Teitelman v. SAIF ultimately enacted must be capable of carrying out that intention”
• noting that it is “very common” for the legis- lature to respond to a specific problem by choosing to enact a statute with “wording broad enough to address more than the specific problem that prompted it”
• construing ORS 165.540(3) according to its “actual wording”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Evensen
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2019-06-26· cited 13×
• Teitelman v. SAIF
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2024-04-17
• Garland and Garland
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2020-09-16
• Mirkovic v. Tenasys Corp.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2026-04-01

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1993-10-19· cited 2,400×
• State v. Gaines
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2009-04-30· cited 1,741×
• Comcast Corp. v. Department of Revenue
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2014-10-02· cited 168×
• Monaco v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1976-06-04· cited 53×
• State v. Dickerson
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2015-03-12· cited 49×
• South Beach Marina, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1986-08-26· cited 35×
• State v. Jones
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2005-10-20· cited 12×