holding that chemical contamination to porous materials caused by the production of methamphetamine is not excluded under the policy as "contamination"
Summary of this case from Prudential Property Casualty Insurance v. Lillard-Roberts1993.
holding that chemical contamination to porous materials caused by the production of methamphetamine is not excluded under the policy as "contamination"
Summary of this case from Prudential Property Casualty Insurance v. Lillard-Robertsholding statute prohibiting person from "promoting, conducting, participating in or being spectator at exhibition of animal fighting" did not violate the First Amendment
Summary of this case from Edmondson v. Pearceconcluding that a statute requiring the PUC to provide refunds in specific circumstances did not preclude the PUC from making refunds in other circumstances under its statutory authority to protect customers and the general public
Summary of this case from BP W. Coast Prods., LLP v. Or. Dep't of Justicerejecting vagueness challenge to statute prohibiting person's presence as a spectator at a cockfight or "preparations thereto," even though such term is not defined by the statute
Summary of this case from Edmondson v. Pearcerejecting the utility's argument “that, because the legislature has authorized refunds under a specific statute, ORS 759.185, it has limited PUC's authority to order a refund in any other circumstance. Nothing in ORS 759.185 or limits PUC's power to order a refund in other circumstances, and we do not believe that the statute should be interpreted to impose such a limitation.”
Summary of this case from Chang v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Or.Full title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ALLOWED AND DENIED
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jan 1, 1993
atutes. See e.g., State v. Todd, supra note 38, 468 N.W.2d at 466 (holding the Iowa statute, which prohibits…
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Pitzer"Issue preclusion precludes future litigation of an issue only when the issue was actually litigated and…