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 2014–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bryant v. Recall for Lowell's Future Committeegreen2 sentences2025See Bryant, 286 Or App at 699-700 (applying the Neumann test to determine whether statements were “opinion” for pur- poses of an ORS 260.532 claim); Yes on 24-367 Committee, 276 Or App at 353-54 (same). 2025See Bryant, 286 Or App at 699-700 (applying the Neumann test to determine whether statements were “opinion” for pur- poses of an ORS 260.532 claim); Yes on 24-367 Committee, 276 Or App at 353-54 (same). | 2 | 2 |
Yes on 24-367 Committee v. Deatongreen2 sentences2025See Bryant, 286 Or App at 699-700 (applying the Neumann test to determine whether statements were “opinion” for pur- poses of an ORS 260.532 claim); Yes on 24-367 Committee, 276 Or App at 353-54 (same). 2025See Bryant, 286 Or App at 699-700 (applying the Neumann test to determine whether statements were “opinion” for pur- poses of an ORS 260.532 claim); Yes on 24-367 Committee, 276 Or App at 353-54 (same). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Neumann v. Liles
green
2 sentences2025Under Neumann, in deciding whether a reason- able factfinder could conclude that a statement implies an assertion of objective fact, such that it cannot be considered a mere expression of opinion, the relevant factors are “(1) whether the general tenor of the entire publication negates the impression that the defendant was asserting an objective fact; (2) whether the defendant used figurative or hyperbolic language that negates that impression; and (3) whether the statement in question is susceptible of being proved true or false.” Neumann, 358 Or at 719 . 2025Under Neumann, in deciding whether a reason- able factfinder could conclude that a statement implies an assertion of objective fact, such that it cannot be considered a mere expression of opinion, the relevant factors are “(1) whether the general tenor of the entire publication negates the impression that the defendant was asserting an objective fact; (2) whether the defendant used figurative or hyperbolic language that negates that impression; and (3) whether the statement in question is susceptible of being proved true or false.” Neumann, 358 Or at 719 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Neumann v. Liles
green
2 sentences2016The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, reasoning that “the evidence submitted by plaintiffs, if credited, would permit a reasonable factfinder to rule in Neumann’s favor on the defamation claim, and the evidence submitted by [Liles] does not defeat Neumann’s claim as a matter of law.” Neumann v. Liles, 261 Or App 567, 575 , 323 P3d 521 (2014). 2016The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, reasoning that “the evidence submitted by plaintiffs, if credited, would permit a reasonable factfinder to rule in Neumann’s favor on the defamation claim, and the evidence submitted by [Liles] does not defeat Neumann’s claim as a matter of law.” Neumann v. Liles, 261 Or App 567, 575 , 323 P3d 521 (2014). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Brown v. Gatti
green
2 sentences2016Because we conclude, as discussed below, that Neumann’s claim is not legally sufficient, we do not address that argument. 712 Neumann v. Liles “ascribes to another conduct, characteristics or a condition incompatible with the proper conduct of his lawful business, trade, [or] profession.” Brown v. Gatti, 341 Or 452, 458 , 145 P3d 130 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2016Because we conclude, as discussed below, that Neumann’s claim is not legally sufficient, we do not address that argument. 712 Neumann v. Liles “ascribes to another conduct, characteristics or a condition incompatible with the proper conduct of his lawful business, trade, [or] profession.” Brown v. Gatti, 341 Or 452, 458 , 145 P3d 130 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Young v. Davis
green
1 sentence2014Young, 259 Or App at 508-11 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |