§

Dowell v. Or. Mut. Ins. Co.

268 Or. App. 672 (Or. Ct. App. 2015)
Dowell v. Or. Mut. Ins. Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. Dowell v. Or. Mut. Ins. Co.

    361 Or. 62 (Or. 2017)   Cited 16 times
    Describing PIP benefits must be offered by insurance companies to cover expenses incurred by insureds from injuries sustained in automobile accidents

    Plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co. , 268 Or.App. 672, 343 P.3d 283 (2015). In 2009, the legislature amended ORS 742.524(1)(a), but those amendments apply only to policies issued or renewed after the January 1, 2010, effective date.

  2. Portland Marche, LLC v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n

    3:21-cv-00569-IM (D. Or. Mar. 17, 2023)

    “When interpreting a statute, [the] goal is to discern legislative intent . . . considering] the text and context, and, where it is helpful, legislative history.” Dowell v. OregonMut. Ins. Co., 268 Or.App. 672, 676 (2015), aff'd, 361 Or. 62 (2017)

  3. Bialostosky v. Cummings

    319 Or. App. 352 (Or. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times
    Stating the standard of review where the material facts are uncontested and the outcome turned on the meaning of the statute

    "Means" is regularly used to signal when "the definition restricts or limits the meaning of a word." Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co. , 268 Or. App. 672, 678, 343 P.3d 283 (2015), aff'd , 361 Or. 62, 388 P.3d 1050 (2017). On the other hand, "includes" is often used to signal that the legislature did "not intend to confine the scope of a general term in a statute according to the characteristics of the listed examples."

  4. State v. Jackson

    318 Or. App. 370 (Or. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 3 times
    In Jackson, after acknowledging the holdings of King and Daly, we addressed the merits of the defendant's argument because the parties litigated the issue at trial and the state did not contend that it was prejudiced by the defendant's failure to raise the issue pretrial.

    The term "passed" is not defined in the statute; we therefore assume that the legislature intended the plain meaning of the word to apply. Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co ., 268 Or. App. 672, 676, 343 P.3d 283, rev. den. , 357 Or. 324, 354 P.3d 696 (2015) ("When a term is defined by a statute, we look to the statutory definition, but when a term is not statutorily defined, we look to dictionary definitions to ascertain the plain meaning of the term."). Given the context in which it is used here, the most relevant dictionary definition of the transitive verb "pass" is "to go through successfully or satisfactorily : attain the required standard in : satisfy the requirements of < ~ ed the bar examination> < had ~ed a security check *** >."

  5. State v. Rosling

    288 Or. App. 357 (Or. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 3 times

    The statutory text is "the best evidence of the legislature's intent." Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co., 268 Or. App. 672, 676, 343 P.3d 283 (2015), aff'd, 361 Or. 62, 388 P.3d 1050 (2017). The parties have not cited, and we are not aware of, any helpful legislative history.

  6. Landis v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp.

    383 P.3d 349 (Or. Ct. App. 2016)

    In determining whether the rule's definition of the term is inconsistent with the meaning of the undefined term as used in the statute, we would ordinarily attempt to discern the legislature's intentions based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. See Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co. , 268 Or.App. 672, 676, 343 P.3d 283, rev. allowed , 358 Or. 145, 363 P.3d 1287 (2015) (when a term is not statutorily defined, courts look to dictionary definitions to ascertain the plain meaning of the term). The commonly understood meaning of the term “prosthetic” as defined in dictionaries is, if anything, more restrictive than the administrative rule's definition.