|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|SAIF Corporation v. Carl S. Ward|
|Via Video Case 3|
|Beth Cupani on behalf of Robert S Murray and State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation |
Craig Thomas Miller on behalf of Carl S. Ward
Statement of Issues:
|(1) Did the interpretation by the Court of Appeals of the statutory phrase "leasehold interest" in ORS 656.027(15) depart from the text of the statute by incorporating a requirement that the leasehold interest must be transferable?|
(2) Did the Court of Appeals erroneously rely on its interpretation of a provision of unemployment compensation law in determining that a "leasehold interest" under ORS 656.027(15) includes a requirement that the interest be transferable?
(3) Does the legislative history of ORS 656.027(15) support the Court of Appeals' interpretation that provision?
These summaries of cases are prepared for the benefit of members of the media to assist them in reporting the court's activities to the public. Parties and practitioners should not rely on the summaries, or the statement of issues to be decided in the summaries, as indicating the questions that the Supreme Court will consider. Regarding the questions that the Supreme Court may consider, see Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: