Summary
holding that ORS 811.335(b) is unambiguous and must be interpreted without inserting what the legislature has omitted
Summary of this case from State v. ChilsonOpinion
1999.
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
Petitions for Review Allowed and Denied
Oregon Supreme Court
Jan 1, 1999
328 Or. 666 (Or. 1999)
Summaries of
Petitions for Review Allowed and Denied
Oregon Supreme Court
Jan 1, 1999
328 Or. 666 (Or. 1999)
holding that ORS 811.335(b) is unambiguous and must be interpreted without inserting what the legislature has omitted
Summary of this case from State v. Chilsonreasoning that a court in a dissolution proceeding may not directly control the disposition of proceeds from a trust where the disposition is at the discretion of the trustees, particularly when the trustees are not parties to the dissolution and there are other beneficiaries
Summary of this case from Winkler and Winklerdescribing preservation inquiry as: "Did the trial court have a realistic opportunity to make the right call?"
Summary of this case from Maquiel v. Adkinsdescribing doctrine
Summary of this case from State v. Finlaydescribing preservation inquiry as: "Did the trial court have a realistic opportunity to make the right call?"
Summary of this case from Bacote v. Johnsondescribing preservation inquiry as: "Did the trial court have a realistic opportunity to make the right call?"
Summary of this case from State v. IronsCase details for
Petitions for Review Allowed and Denied
Case Details
Full title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ALLOWED AND DENIED
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jan 1, 1999
Citations
328 Or. 666 (Or. 1999)
Citing Cases
Winkler and Winkler
We cannot make that finding because it is too speculative and not consistent with case law. See Jones and…
US Bancorp v. Mulrooney" The fundamental flaw in that position is that, as the board recognized, "a trust is a legal entity that is…