green
Positive treatment
1.2 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
McLean v. Buck Medical Services, Inc.
See Abu-Adas v. Employment Dept., 325 Or 480, 485 , 940 P2d 518 (1997) (court uses same method in interpreting agency rules that it does in interpreting statute).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bend Tarp and Liner, Inc. v. Bundy
See, e.g., Wilkes v. Zurlinden, 146 Or App 371, 378 , 932 P2d 584 , vacated on other grounds 325 Or 489 , 940 P2d 518 (1997), adhered to on remand 152 Or App 130 , 952 P2d 569 , rev allowed 327 Or 192 (1998). 2 If, as plaintiff now contends, the uncontroverted evidence establishes that deféndants benefitted from plaintiffs labor and materials, plaintiff should have sought a decision as a matter of law on its right to recover in quantum meruit and to receive an offset on any award of damages to defendants.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Daniel Mitchell, a Child. STATE ex rel JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY, on Review
v.
Daniel MITCHELL, on Review
v.
Daniel MITCHELL, on Review
CC 9201-80221; CA A78788; SC S41701.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Jul 18, 1997.
Julie H. McFarlane, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner on review., Janet A. Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent on review. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General., Jenny Cooke, Portland, filed a brief for amicus curiae Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.
Carson, Durham, Fadeley, Gillette, Graber, Hoomissen.
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The decision of the Court of Appeals and the order of the juvenile court are affirmed by an equally divided court.