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 1 courts 1986–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Swartzendrubergreen2 sentences2005See also State v. Swartzendruber, 120 Or App 552, 556-57 , 853 P2d 842 (1993) (applying exclusionary rule for evidence seized in violation of Article I, section 9, to sentencing hearing; concluding, under Rogers’s analysis, that liberty interests affected by sentencing were sufficiently similar to those at stake in criminal trials and probation revocation proceedings to warrant extension of exclusionary rule). 6 Here, any deprivation of plaintiffs liberty resulting from the school expulsion proceeding is hardly qualitatively “analogous to the liberty interests at stake in traditional prosecuti 2005See also State v. Swartzendruber, 120 Or App 552, 556-57 , 853 P2d 842 (1993) (applying exclusionary rule for evidence seized in violation of Article I, section 9, to sentencing hearing; concluding, under Rogers’s analysis, that liberty interests affected by sentencing were sufficiently similar to those at stake in criminal trials and probation revocation proceedings to warrant extension of exclusionary rule). 6 Here, any deprivation of plaintiffs liberty resulting from the school expulsion proceeding is hardly qualitatively “analogous to the liberty interests at stake in traditional prosecuti | 1 | 1 |
Halfman v. STATE ACC. INS. FUNDgreen2 sentences1989See, e.g., Halfman v. SAIF, 49 Or App 23, 28 , 618 P2d 1294 (1980). 1989See, e.g., Halfman v. SAIF, 49 Or App 23, 28 , 618 P2d 1294 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Compensation of Halfman v. State Accident Insurance Fundgreen2 sentences1989See, e.g., Halfman v. SAIF, 49 Or App 23, 28 , 618 P2d 1294 (1980). 1989See, e.g., Halfman v. SAIF, 49 Or App 23, 28 , 618 P2d 1294 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Elwood v. State Accident Insurancegreen2 sentences1986See Elwood v. SAIF, 298 Or 429, 433 , 693 P2d 641 (1985) (dictum using Rogers analysis in occupational disease context). 1986See Elwood v. SAIF, 298 Or 429, 433 , 693 P2d 641 (1985) (dictum using Rogers analysis in occupational disease context). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rogers v. State Accident Insurance Fund
green
2 sentences1990We cited Rogers v. SAIF, *493 289 Or. 633, 642 , 616 P.2d 485 (1980), and explained the Rogers test in detail, in Preston v. SAIF, 88 Or. 1990We cited Rogers v. SAIF, *493 289 Or. 633, 642 , 616 P.2d 485 (1980), and explained the Rogers test in detail, in Preston v. SAIF, 88 Or. | 3 | 1989–1990 |
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Rogers
green
1 sentence2005See also State v. Swartzendruber, 120 Or App 552, 556-57 , 853 P2d 842 (1993) (applying exclusionary rule for evidence seized in violation of Article I, section 9, to sentencing hearing; concluding, under Rogers’s analysis, that liberty interests affected by sentencing were sufficiently similar to those at stake in criminal trials and probation revocation proceedings to warrant extension of exclusionary rule). 6 Here, any deprivation of plaintiffs liberty resulting from the school expulsion proceeding is hardly qualitatively “analogous to the liberty interests at stake in traditional prosecuti | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Preston v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.
green
2 sentences1990We cited Rogers v. SAIF, *493 289 Or. 633, 642 , 616 P.2d 485 (1980), and explained the Rogers test in detail, in Preston v. SAIF, 88 Or. 1990We cited Rogers v. SAIF, *493 289 Or. 633, 642 , 616 P.2d 485 (1980), and explained the Rogers test in detail, in Preston v. SAIF, 88 Or. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Mellis v. McEWEN, HANNA, GISVOLD, RANKIN & VAN KOTEN, EMPLOYERS, AND MISSION INS. CO.
green
2 sentences1989Under the “unitary ‘work-connection’ ” test, Rogers v. SAIF, 289 Or 633, 643 , 616 P2d 485 (1980), claimant’s injury is compensable if it has a “sufficient work relationship * * In Mellis v. McEwen, Hanna, Gisvold, 74 Or App 571, 573-74 , 703 P2d 255 , rev den 300 Or 249 (1985), we identified seven factors for the Board to consider in reaching conclusions under the Rogers test. 1989Under the “unitary ‘work-connection’ ” test, Rogers v. SAIF, 289 Or 633, 643 , 616 P2d 485 (1980), claimant’s injury is compensable if it has a “sufficient work relationship * * In Mellis v. McEwen, Hanna, Gisvold, 74 Or App 571, 573-74 , 703 P2d 255 , rev den 300 Or 249 (1985), we identified seven factors for the Board to consider in reaching conclusions under the Rogers test. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.