Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1952–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Marriage of Austingreen2 sentences2003See ORS 109.119(2)(a); ORS 109.119(3)(a); ORS 109.119(4)(b); see also Austin and Austin, 185 Or App 720, 727 , 62 P3d 413 (2003) (reasoning that the issue in the case was whether the nonparent had rebutted the presumption in favor of the parent). 2003See ORS 109.119(2)(a); ORS 109.119(3)(a); ORS 109.119(4)(b); see also Austin and Austin, 185 Or App 720, 727 , 62 P3d 413 (2003) (reasoning that the issue in the case was whether the nonparent had rebutted the presumption in favor of the parent). | 1 | 1 |
Boise Cascade Corp. v. Starbuckgreen2 sentences1986Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Kearns, 70 Or App 583 , 690 P2d 1068 (1984); see also Boise Cascade Corp. v. Starbuck, 296 Or 238 , 675 P2d 1044 (1984). 1986Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Kearns, 70 Or App 583 , 690 P2d 1068 (1984); see also Boise Cascade Corp. v. Starbuck, 296 Or 238 , 675 P2d 1044 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Voigt v. State
neutral
2 sentences2025“The state must therefore prove that the violation of defendant’s rights had such a tenuous factual link to the disputed evidence that the unlawful police conduct cannot be properly viewed as the source of that evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 2025The state has the burden of rebutting that presumption: “The state may rebut that presumption by proving, as rele- vant here, that the police did not exploit the unlawful police conduct to obtain the challenged evidence—that is, that the unlawful police conduct was independent of, or only tenu- ously related to the disputed evidence.” State v. Riley, 288 Or App 264 , 271, 406 P3d 81 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 861 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Marriage of Kunze
green
1 sentence2008Kunze, 337 Or at 135 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Kearns
green
2 sentences1986Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Kearns, 70 Or App 583 , 690 P2d 1068 (1984); see also Boise Cascade Corp. v. Starbuck, 296 Or 238 , 675 P2d 1044 (1984). 1986Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Kearns, 70 Or App 583 , 690 P2d 1068 (1984); see also Boise Cascade Corp. v. Starbuck, 296 Or 238 , 675 P2d 1044 (1984). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Zollinger v. Frank
green
2 sentences1952The owner of the servient estate, in order to avoid the acquisition of an easement by prescription, has the burden of rebutting this presumption by showing that the use was permissive.” In Zollinger v. Frank, 110 Utah 514 , 175 P2d, 714 , 170 ALR 770, 773 , the Utah Supreme Court quotes and adopts the rule as stated in 17 Am Jur, Easements, 981, § 72, supra. To this case as reported in 170 ALR, commencing at page 776, is appended an exhaustive *472 note dealing with the subject “Easement by prescription: presumption and burden of proof as to adverse character of use.” At page 779, the author o 1952The owner of the servient estate, in order to avoid the acquisition of an easement by prescription, has the burden of rebutting this presumption by showing that the use was permissive.” In Zollinger v. Frank, 110 Utah 514 , 175 P2d, 714 , 170 ALR 770, 773 , the Utah Supreme Court quotes and adopts the rule as stated in 17 Am Jur, Easements, 981, § 72, supra. To this case as reported in 170 ALR, commencing at page 776, is appended an exhaustive *472 note dealing with the subject “Easement by prescription: presumption and burden of proof as to adverse character of use.” At page 779, the author o | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.