green
Positive treatment
Trending · 87 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 2×
11.1 score
“but for the defendant's criminally negligent homicide of the decedent, would not have been subjected to those expenses. therefore incurred economic damages.”
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
City of Portland v. Bartlett
f the full effect cannot be given to both statutes, the more specific statute will control over the more general one.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Pumphrey
but for the defendant's criminally negligent homicide of the decedent, would not have been subjected to those expenses. therefore incurred economic damages.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Pool
Accord State v. Ceballos, 235 Or App 208, 210, 215-16 , 230 P3d 954 , rev den, 348 Or 669 (2010) (rejecting homicide defendant’s argument that his restitution should not include funeral expenses for the victim because the vic- tim “would someday have died anyway and would have had funeral expenses,” explaining that, “if defendant had not killed the decedent, the funeral expenses at issue would not 26 State v. Pool have been incurred”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Pool
Accord State v. Ceballos, 235 Or App 208, 210, 215-16 , 230 P3d 954 , rev den, 348 Or 669 (2010) (rejecting homicide defendant’s argument that his restitution should not include funeral expenses for the victim because the 26 State v. Pool victim “would someday have died anyway and would have had funeral expenses,” explaining that, “if defendant had not killed the decedent, the funeral expenses at issue would not have been incurred”).
cited
Cited "see"
Rivera v. Perlo Construction, LLC
See Merten v. PGE, 234 Or App 407, 414-16 , 228 P3d 623 , rev den, 348 Or 669 (2010).13 worker’s employer.
cited
Cited "see"
Rivera v. Perlo Construction, LLC
See Merten v. PGE, 234 Or App 407, 414-16 , 228 P3d 623 , rev den, 348 Or 669 (2010).13 worker’s employer.
cited
Cited "see"
Nelson v. Liberty Ins. Corp.
See Wirth v. Sierra Cascade, LLC, 234 Or App 740, 745 , 230 P3d 29 , rev den, 348 Or 669 (2010).
cited
Cited "see"
Jones v. Nava
Accord Wilson v. Tri-Met, 234 Or App 615, 622 , 228 P3d 1225 , rev den, 348 Or 669 (2010); Petersen v. Farmers Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Martinez
See State v. Creech, 235 Or App 183 , 230 P3d 102 , rev den, 348 Or 669 (2010) (imposition of restitution unsupported by any evidence that the victim had actually suffered a pecuniary loss was plain error); State v. Harrington, 229 Or App 473 , 211 P3d 972 , rev den, 347 Or 365 (2009) (court plainly erred in awarding restitution where there was no evidentiary support for the amount of the victim’s loss).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Barrett
See City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 US 41, 53 , 119 S Ct 1849 , 144 L Ed 2d 67 (1999) (recognizing “the freedom to loiter for innocent purposes”); see also State v. Berringer, 234 Or App 665, 671-75 , 229 32 State v. Barrett P3d 615, rev den, 348 Or 669 (2010) (discussing the right to interstate travel).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Herfurth
State v. Romero-Navarro, 224 Or App 25, 30 , 197 P3d 30 (2008), rev den, 348 Or 13 (2010) (the Account was entitled to restitution for burial expenses it paid, where the victim’s family was liable for the expenses and could have brought a civil action against the defendant to recover them); see also State v. Ceballos, 235 Or App 208, 215-16 , 230 P3d 954 , rev den, 348 Or 669 (2010) (the victim’s brother was entitled to restitution for expenses he “was subjected to” for the victim’s burial).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hill
See, e.g., Merten v. Portland General Electric Co., 234 Or App 407, 413 , 228 P3d 623 , rev den, 348 Or 669 (2010).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Friend
Gaines, 346 Or at 171 ; see also State v. Cloutier, 351 Or 68, 100 , 261 P3d 1234 (2011) (explaining that courts consider prior cases construing a statute at the first level of analysis). “[OJnce the meaning and application of a statute have been put before us, we have an obligation to correctly construe and apply that statute.” Wilson v. Tri-Met, 234 Or App 615, 624 , 228 P3d 1225 , rev den, 348 Or 669 (2010); see also Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or 72, 77 , 948 P2d 722 (1997) (“In construing a statute, this court is responsible for identifying the correct interpretation, whether or not asserted…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Haines
(2×)
State v. Romero-Navarro, 224 Or.App. 25, 29 , 197 P.3d 30 (2008), rev den, 348 Or. 13 , 227 P.3d 1172 (2010) (burial expenses paid for by a third party were still "incurred" by the victim's parents under ORS 31.710(2)(a)); see also State v. Ceballos, 235 Or.App. 208, 213-15 , 230 P.3d 954 , rev den, 348 Or. 669 , 237 P.3d 824 (2010) (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MERTEN
v.
PORTLAND GENERAL ELEC. CO.
v.
PORTLAND GENERAL ELEC. CO.
S058497.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Aug 18, 2010.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (2)
Petition for Review Denied.