Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald People's Utility District

19 Citing cases

  1. Urban Renewal Comm'n of the Or. City v. Williams

    322 Or. App. 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    Rather, it is a question of whether the state law affects "the authority of the people of a city to choose the organization and political form of their local government." Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald PUD , 339 Or. 631, 647, 125 P.3d 740 (2005). For example, in La Grande/Astoria , the state law at issue was one that required cities and counties to provide police and firefighters with state retirement and insurance benefits, with the financial burden of obtaining the insurance at the local level, or to provide comparable local benefits.

  2. Kramer v. City of Lake Oswego

    365 Or. 422 (Or. 2019)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that the city may not unreasonably interfere with the public's ability to enter the public water from abutting upland, and whether city's restrictions should be invalidated depended on a reasonableness test

    Springfield Utility Board. v. Emerald PUD, 339 Or. 631, 647, 125 P.3d 740 (2005) (citation omitted). "Under a city’s home-rule authority, ‘the validity of local action depends, first, on whether it is authorized by the local charter or by a statute[, and] second, on whether it contravenes state or federal law.’ "

  3. AAA Or./Idaho Auto Source, LLC v. State

    363 Or. 411 (Or. 2018)   Cited 7 times
    Stating that, when interpreting the text of a constitutional provision imported from a previous version of the provision, this court's task is to determine the intent underlying the previous version

    The fact that paragraph (1)(a) of Article IX, section 3a, refers to taxes levied on sales, but paragraph (1)(b) does not, indicates that paragraph (1)(b) does not include taxes levied on sales. See generally Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald PUD , 339 Or. 631, 642, 125 P.3d 740 (2005) (generally, when a term is used in one provision and excluded from another, courts assume that exclusion was purposeful and meant to indicate a distinction between the two provisions); Perlenfein and Perlenfein , 316 Or. 16, 22, 848 P.2d 604 (1993) (when a legislature or agency uses a particular term in one provision of a statute or regulation, but omits that same term in a parallel and related provision, this court infers that the enacting or promulgating body did not intend that the term apply in the provision from which the term is omitted); see also King Estate Winery, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. , 329 Or. 414, 422, 988 P.2d 369 (1999) (in statute exempting certain categories of farm machinery from ad valorem taxation, the legislature's reference to machines for processing and selling farm products in the subsection relating to animal farming, but not in the subsection relating to crop farming, indicated that the legislature did not intend to exempt machines for processing and selling c

  4. Jordan v. Saif

    343 Or. 208 (Or. 2007)   Cited 9 times
    In Jordan, this court determined that the Workers' Compensation Board's "own motion" authority did not include the power to suspend temporary disability payments when the claimant failed to comply with a treatment regimen.

    This exclusion, at a minimum, is some indication that the legislature intended to omit suspension from the list of own-motion authority that it granted to the board. See Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald PUD, 339 Or 631, 642, 125 P3d 740 (2005) (where the legislature uses term in one section of statute, but not another, court presumes that omission is purposeful). Here, the legislature failed to include suspension as part of the board's own-motion authority.

  5. Corrigan v. YRC Worldwide, Inc. (In re Corrigan)

    333 Or. App. 751 (Or. Ct. App. 2024)

    Rather, by removing "living apart," the legislature gave the first sentence a broader meaning, whereby a "state of abandonment" could include the concept of a "willful" desertion or a desertion in which the parties have acquiesced. See Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald PUD, 339 Or. 631, 642, 125 P.3d 740 (2005) ("[U]se of a term in one section and not in another section of the same statute indicates a purposeful omission[.]" (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). And, as described earlier, the fact that parties may have been living in the same physical domicile

  6. City of Portland v. Bldg. Codes Div.

    313 Or. App. 93 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 1 times
    In City of Portland v. Building Codes Div., 313 Or. App. 93, 496 P.3d 1108 (2021), we described the enactment history of the ordinance, as well as the overlay of the statutory and regulatory schemes involving the state building code and state fire marshal statutes.

    In general, Oregon cities have home-rule authority under the state constitution to regulate to the extent provided in their charters, and those provisions "provide authority for the people of a city to determine the organization, and to define the powers, of their local government without first having to obtain authorization from the state legislature." Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald PUD , 339 Or. 631, 647, 125 P.3d 740 (2005). "Under a city's home-rule authority, the validity of local action depends, first, on whether it is authorized by the local charter or by a statute, and second, on whether it contravenes state or federal law."

  7. Tri-County Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or., an Or. Mun. Corp. v. Aizawa

    277 Or. App. 504 (Or. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 4 times

    SeeSpringfield Utility Board. v. Emerald PUD, 339 Or 631, 642, 125 P3d 740 (2005) ("'[U]se of a term in one section and not in another section of the same statute indicates a purposeful omission[.]'" (Quoting PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 611, 859 P2d 1143 (1993).)).

  8. State ex rel Willamette Cmty. Health Solutions v. Lane Cnty.

    274 Or. App. 545 (Or. Ct. App. 2015)

    As that court noted, generally speaking, when the legislature uses a term in one statutory provision and excludes it from another, we assume that the exclusion was purposeful and meant to indicate a distinction between the two provisions. Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald PUD, 339 Or 631, 642, 125 P3d 740 (2005). That principle of statutory construction, however, is not a rule of law, but merely a guide to determining the legislature's intent.

  9. State ex rel Willamette Cmty. Health Solutions, an Or. Non-Profit Corp. v. Lane Cnty.

    361 P.3d 613 (Or. Ct. App. 2015)

    As that court noted, generally speaking, when the legislature uses a term in one statutory provision and excludes it from another, we assume that the exclusion was purposeful and meant to indicate a distinction between the two provisions. Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald PUD, 339 Or. 631, 642, 125 P.3d 740 (2005). That principle of statutory construction, however, is not a rule of law, but merely a guide to determining the legislature's intent.

  10. State v. Urie

    268 Or. App. 362 (Or. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    Generally, when the legislature includes an express provision in one statute and omits the provision from a related statute, a court may assume that the omission was deliberate. Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald PUD, 339 Or. 631, 642, 125 P.3d 740 (2005). However, we apply that maxim only to “corroborate[ ], rather than suppl[y], meaning to a statute.”