State v. Robison

How courts have described this case

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

• the fact that the legislature employed certain phrasing in one statute, but not another, is not conclusive
• The fact that the legislature employed certain phrasing in one statute, but not another, permits an inference that the omission was intentional, “[b]ut we cannot say that the text speaks conclusively in that regard.”
• The fact that the legislature employed certain phrasing in one statute, but not another, permits an inference that the omission was intentional, \[b]ut we cannot say that the text speaks conclusively in that regard.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Rodriguez
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2007-12-19· cited 46×
• Doe v. Medford School District 549C
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-11-18· cited 45×
• Lindsey v. Clatskanie People's Utility District
  D. Oregon· 2015-10-23· cited 20×
• City of Corvallis v. Pi Kappa Phi
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2018-08-15· cited 7×
• MEC Oregon Racing, Inc. v. Oregon Racing Commission
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-12-30· cited 5×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• City of Portland v. Dollarhide
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1986-02-04· cited 57×
• City of Portland v. Jackson
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1993-04-29· cited 33×
• State v. Maxwell
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2000-02-09· cited 26×
• City of Portland v. Lodi
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1989-11-16· cited 25×