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 1968–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. Oregon Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences2019Co. , 219 Or. 110 , 341 P.2d 110 , reh'g den. , 219 Or. 130 , 346 P.2d 643 (1959). 1 *793 Lloyd's argued that the policy that it provided to RSVP was an excess liability policy that is not subject to the Lamb-Weston doctrine. 2019Co. , 219 Or. 110 , 341 P.2d 110 , reh'g den. , 219 Or. 130 , 346 P.2d 643 (1959). 1 *793 Lloyd's argued that the policy that it provided to RSVP was an excess liability policy that is not subject to the Lamb-Weston doctrine. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Guthrie v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences2006Ins., 269 Or 14 , 522 P2d 896 (1974). 8 The parties do not suggest that there are any applicable anti-stacking provisions in the policies at issue. 9 Because of our conclusion that Cascade is entitled to prevail under a proper construction of the Lamb-Weston doctrine, we do not need to consider its argument that ORS 465.480 mandates the same result. 2006Ins., 269 Or 14 , 522 P2d 896 (1974). 8 The parties do not suggest that there are any applicable anti-stacking provisions in the policies at issue. 9 Because of our conclusion that Cascade is entitled to prevail under a proper construction of the Lamb-Weston doctrine, we do not need to consider its argument that ORS 465.480 mandates the same result. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Thurman v. Signal Insurance Company
green
2 sentences1999Newman, Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes § 11.02 [a], [b] and [c], 433-34 (6th ed 1993). 6 In Thurman v. Signal Insurance Co., 260 Or 524 , 528 n 1, 491 P2d 1002 (1971), the court explained the Lamb-Weston doctrine: “Lamb-Weston et al v. Ore. 1999Newman, Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes § 11.02 [a], [b] and [c], 433-34 (6th ed 1993). 6 In Thurman v. Signal Insurance Co., 260 Or 524 , 528 n 1, 491 P2d 1002 (1971), the court explained the Lamb-Weston doctrine: “Lamb-Weston et al v. Ore. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Smith v. Pacific Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences1971Co., 240 Or. 167 , 400 P.2d 512 (1965), applies the Lamb-Weston doctrine and sets the clauses aside. 1971Co., 240 Or. 167 , 400 P.2d 512 (1965), applies the Lamb-Weston doctrine and sets the clauses aside. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Sparling v. Allstate Insurance Company
green
2 sentences1971Co., 249 Or. 471 , 439 P.2d 616 (1968), where we applied the Lamb-Weston doctrine. [1] The pro rata provision of one policy and the escape provision of the other were held to be repugnant to and in conflict with each other and of no effect. 1971Co., 249 Or. 471 , 439 P.2d 616 (1968), where we applied the Lamb-Weston doctrine. [1] The pro rata provision of one policy and the escape provision of the other were held to be repugnant to and in conflict with each other and of no effect. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Certain Underwriters
neutral
2 sentences1968Co. v. Lloyds’ Underwriters, 56 Ill App2d 224, 205 NE2d 735 (1965), was not in a “non-owned” automobile case. 1968Co. v. Lloyds’ Underwriters, 56 Ill App2d 224, 205 NE2d 735 (1965), was not in a “non-owned” automobile case. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Globe Indemnity Co. v. Insurance & Surety Co.
neutral
2 sentences1968The District Court of Guam, Globe Indemnity Co. v. Capital Insurance and Surety Co., 228 F. Supp. 494 (D.C.Guam 1964), also preferred the majority rule, but felt bound by the Ninth Circuit decision in Travelers Insurance Co. v. Peerless Insurance Co., supra. The adoption of the Lamb-Weston rule by the Appellate Court of Illinois in New Amsterdam Cas. 1968The District Court of Guam, Globe Indemnity Co. v. Capital Insurance and Surety Co., 228 F. Supp. 494 (D.C.Guam 1964), also preferred the majority rule, but felt bound by the Ninth Circuit decision in Travelers Insurance Co. v. Peerless Insurance Co., supra. The adoption of the Lamb-Weston rule by the Appellate Court of Illinois in New Amsterdam Cas. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Travelers Insurance Company, a Corporation v. Peerless Insurance Company, a Corporation
green
1 sentence1968It was the "chicken" which laid the Lamb-Weston "egg." In the second case, Travelers Insurance Co. v. Peerless Insurance Co., 287 F.2d 742 (9th Cir.1961), the court indicated clearly that it applied the minority Lamb-Weston rule only because it was required to do so by our decision in Lamb-Weston. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Certain Underwriters
green
2 sentences1968Co. v. Certain Underwriters, 34 Ill2d 424, 216 NE2d 665 (1966), which expressly rejected the Lamb-Weston rule. 1968Co. v. Certain Underwriters, 34 Ill2d 424, 216 NE2d 665 (1966), which expressly rejected the Lamb-Weston rule. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.