Court Opinion

ID: 9583985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:43:34.888996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:06:21.637930
License: Public Domain

GILLETTE, P. J.,
concurring.
I join fully in the opinion of the Chief Judge. I write separately only to note that, in reaching the result we reach today, we abide by the cardinal rule of statutory construction: What the legislature has written plainly and clearly is what the legislature means. It is not our function to rewrite the statute when, after its enactment, unanticipated anomalies arise. See also ORS 174.010.* 1 Nonetheless, were we the *715Supreme Court, we apparently would not be under — or, at least regard ourselves as under — such constraints. See, e.g., McQuary v. Bel Air Convalescent Homes, 296 Or 653, 678 P2d 1222 (1984).

 ORS 174.010 provides;
“In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.”