green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
10.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 ·
…in our de novo review of the record, we give considerable weight to the findings of the trial judge who had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor in evaluating the credibility of their testimony.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In the Matter of Marriage of Paresi
in our de novo review of the record, we give considerable weight to the findings of the trial judge who had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor in evaluating the credibility of their testimony.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In the Matter of Marriage of Fields
in our de novo review of the record, we give considerable weight to the findings of the trial judge who had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor in evaluating the credibility of their testimony.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Marriage of ACH and DRH
in our de novo review of the record, we give 'considerable weight to the findings of the trial judge who had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor in evaluating the credibility of their testimony.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
TradeCard, Inc. v. S1 CORP.
the district court provided a succinct and correct summary of the law of enablement that does not challenge. a trial court need not further instruct the jury on what enablement does not require.
cited
Cited "see"
Department of Human Services v. J. R. F.
See O’Donnell-Lamont and Lamont, 337 Or 86, 119-20 , 91 P3d 721 (2004), cert den, 543 US 1050 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
State Ex Rel. Neidig v. Superior National Insurance
ORS 19.415(4); see O’Donnell-Lamont and Lamont, 337 Or 86, 89 , 91 P3d 721 (2004), cert den, 543 US 1050 (2005) (recognizing court has that choice, electing to review child custody proceeding de novo).
cited
Cited "see"
Lavon Lamar Heath v. Asst. U.S. Attorney
See Lifestar Ambulance Service, Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1050 , 125 S.Ct. 866 , 160 L.Ed.2d 770 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rennie and Rennie
See Kleinsasser, 265 Or App at 206 -07 5 ORS 109.119(4) provides: “(4)(a) In deciding whether the presumption described in subsection (2) (a) of this section has been rebutted and whether to award visitation or con- tact rights over the objection of the legal parent, the court may consider fac- tors including, but not limited to, the following, which may be shown by the evidence: “(A) The petitioner or intervenor is or recently has been the child’s pri- mary caretaker; “(B) Circumstances detrimental to the child exist if relief is denied; “(C) The legal parent has fostered, encourage…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gjl v. Akl
See Turner and Muller, 237 Or.App. 192, 197-98 , 238 P.3d 1003 (2010), rev. den., 350 Or. 231 , 253 P.3d 1080 (2011) (reviewing de novo where the trial court's express findings were limited and did not mirror the statutory factors and the appellate court could not discern how implied findings may have affected the trial court's ultimate determination); see also O'Donnell-Lamont and Lamont, 337 Or. 86, 89 , 91 P.3d 721 (2004), cert. den., 543 U.S. 1050 , 125 S.Ct. 867 , 160 L.Ed.2d 770 (2005) (noting that the trial court's findings are entitled to considerable weight).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
G. J. L. v. A. K. L.
See Turner and Muller, 237 Or App 192, 197-98 , 238 P3d 1003 (2010), rev den, 350 Or 231 (2011) (reviewing de novo where the trial court’s express findings were limited and did not mirror the statutory factors and the appellate court could not discern how implied findings may have affected the trial court’s ultimate determination); see also O’Donnell-Lamont and Lamont, 337 Or 86, 89 , 91 P3d 721 (2004), cert den, 543 US 1050 (2005) (noting that the trial court’s findings are entitled to considerable weight).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Armstrong
v.
Segal, as Trustee of Mountain Pacific Ventures, Inc.
v.
Segal, as Trustee of Mountain Pacific Ventures, Inc.
04-479.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 10, 2005.
543 U.S. 1050
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (3) · S.D. New York (1)
ARMSTRONG
v.
SEGAL, AS TRUSTEE OF MOUNTAIN PACIFIC VENTURES, INC., ET AL.
No. 04-479.
Supreme Court of United States.
January 10, 2005.
1
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 97 Fed. Appx. 285.