green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
11.9 score
“in short, in a proceeding for declar- atory relief, the claimant's pleading must allege a cognizable theory of relief, which if proved, would support the declaration sought.”
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Owen v. City of Portland
in short, in a proceeding for declar- atory relief, the claimant's pleading must allege a cognizable theory of relief, which if proved, would support the declaration sought.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Evergreen West Business Center, LLC v. Emmert
oregon courts impose constructive trusts as remedial devices to avoid unjust enrichment when no other adequate remedy is available.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Department of Human Services v. B. A. S.
due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.
discussed
Cited "see"
Larsen v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
See Alexander v. Board of Parole, 205 Or App 443 , 134 P3d 1055 , rev den, 341 Or 449 (2006) (applying substantive criteria for parole release provided in the version of the statute in effect at the time of the petitioner’s crime; applying procedural requirements in effect at the time of the hearing).
cited
Cited "see"
Motsinger v. Lithia Rose-FT, Inc.
See Carey v. Lincoln Loan Co., 203 Or App 399, 422 , 125 P3d 814 (2005), rev allowed, 341 Or 449 (2006) (unconscionability may involve deception, compulsion, or genuine lack of consent).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Briggs v. Lamvik
See also Brown v. Brown, 206 Or App 239, 251 , 136 P3d 745 , rev den, 341 Or 449 (2006) (“A constructive trust is merely a procedural device to which the courts resort in order to effect restitution of property in specie.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RAMIREZ
v.
STATE
v.
STATE
S51605.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Sep 26, 2006.
Cited by 20 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (3)
Petition for review allowed.
The petition for reconsideration is allowed and the order denying review dated July 18, 2006, 341 Or. 197, 140 P.3d 580 is withdrawn. The appellant's petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated and this case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Lyons v. Pearce, 298 Or. 554, 694 P.2d 969 (1985), and Gonzalez v. State of Oregon, 340 Or. 452, 134 P.3d 955 (2006).