Six hours is barely enough time to teach Legislative History 101, but you can still join in the (admittedly wonkish) fun on October 23rd, 2015:
Legislators, lawyers, law students, paralegals, librarians and other legal researchers are welcome to attend or purchase the course materials.
Oregon v. Lang, 273 Or App 113 (2015), (Benton County Circuit Court CM1320460; A154498)
Citations below are to the online, unofficial advance sheet version of this case, and available for viewing (at least as of today) at: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A154498.pdf
This is another case that would be quite instructive to laypeople interested in the law, assuming they read the whole case and also perhaps talk to a lawyer or judge about it, rather than relying on a brief news report – or a blog post.
Note: It’s not very easy to find the 1953-93 archives because you have to click on some very tiny print on a different screen in order to get there. Here are my instructions from a September 2014 Gutbuster blog post: Superseded ORS on the Oregon Legislature’s Website: 1953-1981:
“…. Indirect link: Visit the ORS Archives 1999-2011 webpage and click on the text (in tiny print): “Older editions of the ORS are available here and more are being added as time and resources allow.”
I could use this case to teach an entire course on Oregon legal research to lawyers, law students, legislators, and self-represented litigants:
“ARMSTRONG, P. J.
If you find a “law” on The Internet, doesn’t it mean it’s “The Law?” (hahaha)?
Not everything you read on the Internet is accurate. (I know! Hard to believe, but it’s true!)
Make sure the “law” you find online is accurate and know how to correct and update it if necessary.
A longer or alternate way around to the same information for each Legislative Session:
This example assumes you have a print set of the 2011 ORS and want to know which ORS sections changed in 2013.
See Justice Landau’s concurring opinion in State of Oregon v. Ian George Vanornum (SC S060715), decided December 27, 2013 (on page PDF page 24 or Opinion page 23 or Concurring page 1)
State of Oregon v. Ian George Vanornum (SC S060715), decided December 27, 2013:
Excerpt, p. 7: “.... The initial question that this case raises — whether ORCP 59 H controls appellate court review of claims of instructional error — arises because subsection (1) declares that “a party may not obtain review on appeal” of a trial court’s asserted error in giving or refusing to give a jury instruction unless the party identified the asserted error to the trial court and made a timely notation of exception….” [Link to full opinion.]