Articles Tagged with Legislative history

Published on:

By

Visit the State Archives “Landmark Legislative Bills by Subject” website to find the following:

Oregon Minimum Wage Law Records

1967 HB 1340 Introduction

The 1967 Legislative Assembly enacted House Bill 1340, Oregon’s first uniform minimum wage law that applied to adult men. This law also assigned duties to the Wage and Hour Division to investigate and enforce the legislation. The paper records produced by the 1967 Regular Legislative Session committees which discussed House Bill 1340 have been digitized in Portable Document Format (PDF) and audio recordings of the House Labor & Management committee in MP3 are available for research on this website.”

Published on:

By

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:

Oregon Legislative History: Research and Time Management Tips from the Experts”

Legislators, lawyers, law students, paralegals, librarians and other legal researchers are welcome to attend or purchase the course materials.

(Researchers who live or visit Salem should also visit State Archives and the State Capitol for some hands-on research experience. We couldn’t include those tours in this CLE, but you can have your own educational tour at your own pace on another day.)

Oregon Legislative History CLE
October 23, 2015
8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.
Ambridge Event Center
1333 NE Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Portland, Oregon 97232
6.75 General or Practical Skills MCLE Credits

Published on:

By

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.

One cannot read this case, or most any other case for that matter, through a “common sense” lens, especially if it’s someone else’s idea of common sense and that person hasn’t the slightest clue how laws are made, published, administered, enforced, litigated, or interpreted.

Among other knowledge to be gained from reading this case: one might learn about probable cause, how statutes are interpreted, how judges decide the meanings of words, the role of legislative history, rights and responsibilities of law enforcement personnel, the value of “making a good case” by the police and the prosecutor, etc. Yes, there is much more to learn from this case and perhaps especially the limits of the law and perhaps also how not to handle a neighbor-law problem. (Do not assume these have easy legal or non-legal remedies.)

Aside: We may also assume that none of the parties to the case or the judges ever lived in a small apartment with a large, long-haired dog that had been sprayed full on by a skunk. There is nothing “not inherently unpleasant” about smelling skunkweed-equivalent for days on end. Just saying (g).

Excerpts from Oregon v. Lane:

“... defendant’s appeal is limited to challenging whether the affidavit furnished probable cause to believe that someone in his residence had created a physically offensive condition….” [p. 119]

“…. The parties’ arguments about the meaning of the term “physically offensive” present a question of statutory interpretation. To determine the legislature’s intent, we look to the text of ORS 166.025 in context as well as the legislative history and, if necessary, to interpretive maxims. State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009). We begin with the words of the statute themselves. Because the term “physically offensive” is not statutorily defined, we assume that the legislature intended the words to carry their ordinary meaning. “Physically” means “in respect to the body.” Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary, 1707 (unabridged ed 2002). “Physical,” in turn, means “of or relating to the body <~ strength>—often opposed to mental.” Id. at 1706. “Offensive” means “giving painful or unpleasant sensations” and is synonymous with “nauseous, obnoxious, [and] revolting.” Id. at 1566. Those synonyms suggest that the word “offensive” implies a greater degree of displeasure or discomfort than the word “unpleasant” might, standing alone....” [pp. 119-120]

Published on:

By

The Oregon Legislature (via Legislative Counsel) has now posted all the superseded ORS volumes we scanned (1953-93). They already have 1999-2011 ORS.

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.

We’re still awaiting 1995 and 1997. The Legislature has those digital files and it’s only a matter of time before those show up on the website.

(Yes, there will be a few missing pages from the ORS volumes we scanned. We found a lot of those pages after combing through dozens of ORS duplicate sets and are only waiting for the end of the current Legislative Session to send them on. Legislative Counsel has enough on their plates right now.)

Published on:

By

I could use this case to teach an entire course on Oregon legal research to lawyers, law students, legislators, and self-represented litigants:

City of Damascus v. Henry R. Brown, Jr. (A156920)

ARMSTRONG, P. J.
This case concerns the constitutionality of a bill passed by the 2014 Oregon Legislative Assembly, House Bill (HB) 4029, which permits landowners with property located on the boundary of the City of Damascus to withdraw that property from the jurisdiction of the city….

After consolidating the cases, we requested that the parties also address whether the petitions present us with a justiciable controversy, including whether petitioners have standing, whether the petitions are moot, and whether the parties are adverse….

On the merits of the petitions in GDI and Patton, we conclude that HB 4029 is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to private individuals because the legislation delegates to interested landowners the authority to determine the city’s boundary and to find the facts necessary to make that determination without imposing any meaningful procedural safeguards on the landowners’ fact-finding function. Accordingly, we reverse the GDI and Patton withdrawals….

City of Damascus v. Henry R. Brown, Jr. (A156920 – Agency/Board/Other)

In A156922 and A156923, reversed on cross-petition; in A156920, A156921, A156922, A156923, A156963, A156964, A156982, A156983, A156984, A157037, A157042, A157043, A157044, A157045, A157046, A157047, A157130, A157166, A157167, A157345, A157455, A157456, A157457, petition dismissed.

Published on:

By

The Oregon Legislature now has 1953-1981 ORS on their website. Stay tuned for more superseded ORS to be added to the online collection.

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.”

More about the Gutbuster scanning project we have been working on with Legislative Counsel, including a picture of a Gutbuster.

Published on:

By

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.

Some states have enacted UELMA, Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act. Few have executed the act, but some are in the process.

Oregon’s UELMA is codified at ORS 192.715 et seq. (but does not include court documents, only statutes and regulations).

UELMA Session law: Oregon UELMA: Chapter 221, (2013 Laws): Effective date May 23, 2013

You can find its legislative history using OLIS at the Oregon Legislature’s website: Search 2013 HB 2944 (make sure you’re not in the current session’s default setting)

More about UELMA at these OLR blog posts.

Published on:

By

When this shortcut works, use the ORS Archives page and look for the Statutes Affected by Measures Tables (on the right as of today).

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.

You will need to locate the “Sections Affected by Measures” publication at the Legislature’s website.

You need to get to the right Session first. You can travel from the Legislature’s Bills and Laws homepage or for this example:

1) Shortcut to the 2013 Regular Session OLIS page.
2) From that 2013 Regular Session OLIS page, click on “Reports” for the dropdown menu (upper right)
3) From that “Reports” menu, click on “Daily and Cumulative Session Publications
4) You’ll see the “Sections Affected by Measures” document and others. Voila!

If you have a 2009 ORS, you can update with the 2011 “Sections Affected by Measures” document and a 2013 “Sections Affected by Measures” document.

But don’t forget to double-check those Special Sessions, just in case ….

Published on:

By

[Link to Vanorum I.]

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)

Excerpt:
LANDAU, J., concurring. I write separately to address an issue that the parties did not raise, but that nevertheless made a difference in the outcome of this case and could well make a difference in future cases. That issue concerns the nature of the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure — specifically, whether they are statutes. In brief, some are statutes, and some are not. It depends on whether they were affirmatively enacted into law by the legislature….” [Link to full opinion.]

Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure (ORCP)

Council on Court Procedures (CCP)

Published on:

By

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.]

Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure (ORCP)

Council on Court Procedures (CCP)