Jimenez/Carlson v. Multnomah County

“[T]he text and context of the code . . . are the best indications of the code drafters’ intent." Polacek and Polacek, 349 Or 278, 284, 243 P3d 1190 (2010).

Plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s dismissal of their petitions for writs of review under ORS 34.040. Plaintiffs assigned error to the hearing officer's improper construction of the law and the trial court's decision to affirm it. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that actual "human conduct" was necessary to violate the Multnomah County Code ("MCC") and that there was no evidence of "human conduct" based on the facts of this case. In response, Defendant argued that MCC does not require "affirmative action" or "inaction" because MCC states "the owner is ultimately responsible" for the behavior of their pet. “[T]he text and context of the code . . . are the best indications of the code drafters’ intent." Polacek and Polacek, 349 Or 278, 284, 243 P3d 1190 (2010). The Court of Appeals agreed with Plaintiffs' assertion that the MCC required "human conduct" to find a violation, but the Court also found that there was evidence of human conduct on the record.

Affirmed.