Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Salahub v. Montgomery Ward

288 Or. 249 (Or. 1979)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Salahub v. Montgomery Ward

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. M. A. S. (In re M. A. S.)

    302 Or. App. 687 (Or. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 5 times
    In M. A. S., we determined that "adjudication of [the] youth was completed at the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, and it was too late for the district attorney to present restitution evidence to the court at the dispositional hearing."

    Before the amendment, ORS 419A.205(1) (2001), amended by Or. Laws 2003, ch. 396, § 29, provided that for "the purpose of being appealed * * * [a judgment is a] judgment finding a child to be within the jurisdiction of the court." In Salahub v. Montgomery Ward , 41 Or. App. 775, 784-85, 599 P.2d 1210, rev. den. , 288 Or. 249, 603 P.2d 1381 (1979) (citing ORS 174.010 ), the court noted the rule that statutes of the same subject-matter passed during the same legislative session must be construed together "so that each may remain intact, in the absence of irreconcilable conflict." The state does not argue that youth's construction of the ORS 419C.450 is irreconcilable with ORS 419A.205.

  2. Hornbuckle v. Harris

    686 P.2d 418 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 4 times

    We note that defendants Harris or Hawthorne Land Co. have been before this court at other times involving similar practices. See Household Finance v. Bacon, 58 Or. App. 267, 648 P.2d 421, rev den 293 Or. 653 (1982); First Federal v. Gruber, 45 Or. App. 747, 609 P.2d 419, reversed 290 Or. 53, 618 P.2d 1265 (1980); and Salahub v. Montgomery Ward, 41 Or. App. 775, 599 P.2d 1210, rev den 288 Or. 249 (1979). Oregon has long recognized the rule that the trial court has equitable power to set aside a sheriff's deed and allow a judgment debtor to redeem property when the price paid by the purchaser is so grossly inadequate as to shock the court's conscience.

  3. Royal Aloha Partners v. Real Estate Division

    651 P.2d 1350 (Or. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 4 times

    This court cannot, under the pretext of construing a statute, supply an element omitted, by mistake or design, by the legislature. Salahub v. Montgomery Ward, 41 Or. App. 775, 785, 599 P.2d 1210, rev den 288 Or. 249 (1979). Neither the Subdivision Control Law nor the Condominium Act authorizes the regulation of sales of "right to use" time-share interests.

  4. State v. Brock

    53 Or. App. 785 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that where instruction is limited to evidence offered by the state, defendant's request for instruction should be granted when there is evidence to support the instruction

    In construing the statute before us, our function is to ascertain and apply the intent of the legislature. Fifth Avenue Corp. v. Washington Co., 282 Or. 591, 581 P.2d 50 (1978); Salahub v. Montgomery Ward, 41 Or. App. 775, 599 P.2d 1210, rev den 288 Or. 249 (1979). "In this endeavor, we may give due consideration to legislative history."