green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
14.9 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2018 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2018
2022
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Meyer v. State
where the decision to take an adverse employment action is made prior to any protected activity, no factfinder could find the requisite causal link between the employment action and the protected conduct.
discussed
Cited "see"
Dept. of Human Services v. M. A. C.
See State v. Gray, 286 Or App 799, 806 , 401 P3d 1241 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018) (“[T]he pres- ence of a common thread between an objection at trial and an argument on appeal does not satisfy the preservation requirement if the two arguments are qualitatively differ- ent.” (Internal quotation marks omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Farm
See State v. Gray, 286 Or App 799, 806 , 401 P3d 1241 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018) (“[T]he presence of a common thread between an objection at trial and an argument on appeal does not satisfy the preservation requirement if the two arguments are qualitatively different.” (Internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (explaining that we “ordi- narily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so because it is incumbent upon the appellant to explain to us w…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Hlebechuk
See State v. Gray, 286 Or App 799, 806 , 401 P3d 1241 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018) (“[T]he presence of a common thread between an objection at trial and an argument on appeal does not satisfy the preservation requirement if the two arguments are qualitatively different.” (Internal quo- tation marks omitted.)).
cited
Cited "see"
Seater v. Klamath Irrigation Dist.
See Folz v. ODOT, 287 Or App 667, 672-75 , 404 P3d 1036 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018) (analyzing claims under each statute for qualifying “disclosures” or “reports”).
cited
Cited "see"
Seater v. Klamath Irrigation Dist.
See Folz v. ODOT, 287 Or App 667, 672-75 , 404 P3d 1036 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018) (analyzing claims under each statute for qualifying “disclosures” or “reports”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dept. of Human Services v. B. E. E.
See State v. Gray, 286 Or App 799, 806 , 401 P3d 1241 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018) (explaining that “the pres- ence of a common thread between an objection at trial and 548 Dept. of Human Services v. B.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Setere
See *785 State v. Gensitskiy , 287 Or.App. 129 , 401 P.3d 1219 (2017), rev. allowed , 362 Or. 482 , 412 P.3d 195 (2018) (counts of aggravated identity theft requiring proof that the defendant possessed 10 or more pieces of identification did not merge where each count was based on a different victim).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kirresh v. Gill
See, e.g., State v. Gray, 286 Or App 799, 806 , 401 P3d 1241 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018) (“[T]he presence of a common thread between an objection at trial and an argument on appeal does not satisfy the preservation requirement if the two arguments are qualitatively different.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. H. D. E.
See, e.g., State v. Gray, 286 Or App 799, 806 , 401 P3d 1241 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018) (“[T]he presence of a common thread between an objection at trial and an argument on appeal does not satisfy the preservation requirement if the two arguments are qualitatively different.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). 388 State v. H.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Horton
See also State v. Gray , 286 Or.App. 799 , 401 P.3d 1241 (2017), rev. den. , 362 Or. 482 , 412 P.3d 199 (2018) (stating that under ORS 164.085, to "defraud is to cheat others out of their rightful owner-ship") (internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Reynolds , 246 Or.App. 152 , 159, 265 P.3d 22 (2011) (defraud means "to take or withhold from [another] some possession, right, or interest by calculated misstatement or perversion of truth, trickery, or other deception").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
HOME FORWARD
v.
GRAHAM
v.
GRAHAM
A160851(S065428).
Oregon Supreme Court.
Feb 1, 2018.
Walters, J., would allow.