15.12.2012 Views

Introduction to Basic Legal Citation - access-to-law home

Introduction to Basic Legal Citation - access-to-law home

Introduction to Basic Legal Citation - access-to-law home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

. . . .<br />

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) had promulgated administrative rules<br />

construing ORS 279.350(1) <strong>to</strong> apply <strong>to</strong> all workers at the "site of work." See OAR 839-016-<br />

0004(19). Plaintiff and ODOT agreed <strong>to</strong> incorporate those rules as terms of their contract. As<br />

explained below, central <strong>to</strong> the parties' contract dispute in this case are two subsections of a<br />

BOLI rule that identified the circumstances under which rock quarries, or so-called "borrow<br />

pits," would be considered part of the "site of work."<br />

. . . .<br />

The state moved <strong>to</strong> dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing Al<strong>to</strong> v.<br />

State Fire Marshall, 319 Or 382, 876 P2d 774 (1994), for the proposition that a circuit court<br />

lacks jurisdiction <strong>to</strong> review the validity of agency rules in the context of a declara<strong>to</strong>ry<br />

judgment action. While that motion was pending, ODOT withheld payments on the contract.<br />

Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint in which he alleged that he had complied with the<br />

terms of the contract, including the prevailing wage rules, and that ODOT's decision <strong>to</strong><br />

withhold payments was a breach of the parties' contract. In addition, because ODOT's<br />

decision was based on a determination that plaintiff had failed <strong>to</strong> comply with the prevailing<br />

wage rules, plaintiff argued that the circuit court had acquired subject matter jurisdiction <strong>to</strong><br />

review the validity of those rules under this court's decision in Hay v. Oregon Dep't of<br />

Transportation, 301 Or 129, 719 P2d 860 (1986). ODOT counterclaimed for breach of<br />

contract, and both parties then moved for summary judgment.<br />

. . . .<br />

Or. R. App. P. 5.20, 5.35,<br />

http://www.ojd.state.or.us/web/ojdpublications.nsf/Files/2011ORAPsfromPubs.<br />

pdf/$File/2011ORAPsfromPubs.pdf.<br />

Rule 5.20 REFERENCE TO EVIDENCE AND EXHIBITS; CITATION OF<br />

AUTHORITIES<br />

. . . .<br />

(4) Guidelines for style and conventions in citation of authorities may be found in the Oregon<br />

Appellate Courts Style Manual.<br />

(5) Cases affirmed without opinion by the Court of Appeals should not be cited as authority.<br />

Rule 5.35 APPELLANT'S BRIEF: INDEX<br />

The appellant's combined brief and excerpt shall begin with:<br />

. . . .<br />

225

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!