Waddill v. Anchor Hocking, Inc.
Arleen E. WADDILL, on Review v. ANCHOR HOCKING, INC., a Delaware Corporation, on Review
Waddill v. Anchor Hocking, Inc., 18 P.3d 1096 (Or. 2001)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The petition for reconsideration is allowed. This court’s former opinion is adhered to. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider those assignments of error not considered previously by that court.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 18 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that a party’s motion did not meet the speci- ficity requirements of ORCP 21 A when the motion “neither referred to ORCP 21 A(8) nor worded its objection to resem- ble the wording contained in that rule”)
-
(applying the maxim of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius [the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other] at first level of statutory construction)
-
(only if a rule of civil procedure was amended or adopted by the legislature is the proper focus the intentions of the legislature)
-
(defense enumerated in ORCP 21 G may not be raised for the first time on appeal)
-
(the expression of three instances in which a defense may be asserted implies an intent to limit the assertion of the defense to only those three circumstances)
-
(“unless the legislature amended the rule at issue in a particular case in a manner that affects the issues in that case, the Council’s intent governs the interpretation of the rule”)
-
(“[T]his court has determined that a party may raise [the defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction] at any time, including for the first time on appeal.”)
-
(explain- ing that, in general, we construe provisions of the ORCP through the same methodology that we employ to construe statutes, in that we look first to the text and context of the rule)
Cited by 35 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.