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 1976–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., 359 Or 63, 117 , 376 P3d 960 (2016). 2023Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., 359 Or 63, 117 , 376 P3d 960 (2016). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Caldwell
green
1 sentence2001Relying on Strickland , we held that the trial court did not violate ORCP 59 E, because it “instructed on a substantive legal principle.” Caldwell, 98 Or App at 712 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Kafoury v. Roberts
green
2 sentences1990His only comment to the Secretary of State on readability was: “[B]ecause of the manner in which the title is couched, it is extremely misleading and confusion can only result.” That comment was an abstract observation, Kafoury v. Roberts, 303 Or 306, 311 , 736 P2d 178 (1987) which had no relation to the substantive legal standard for readability. 1990His only comment to the Secretary of State on readability was: “[B]ecause of the manner in which the title is couched, it is extremely misleading and confusion can only result.” That comment was an abstract observation, Kafoury v. Roberts, 303 Or 306, 311 , 736 P2d 178 (1987) which had no relation to the substantive legal standard for readability. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Rainey
green
2 sentences1989Further, defendant asserts that the trial court gave an instruction on an inference or presumption, which may be impermissible “when used against a defendant with reference to an element of the crime * * State v. Rainey, 298 Or 459, 466 , 693 P2d 635 (1985). 4 The disputed instruction was neither an inference nor a presumption within the meaning of Rainey . 1989Further, defendant asserts that the trial court gave an instruction on an inference or presumption, which may be impermissible “when used against a defendant with reference to an element of the crime * * State v. Rainey, 298 Or 459, 466 , 693 P2d 635 (1985). 4 The disputed instruction was neither an inference nor a presumption within the meaning of Rainey . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Fasano v. Board of County Com'rs of Washington Cty.
green
2 sentences1976In such cases, the goal in question would not be part of the criteria constituting the applicable legal standard. 7 Compliance with the applicable goals is a substantive legal requirement, but the process of demonstrating compliance via adequate findings is a procedural matter which is discussed below. 8 Fasano v. Washington Co. Comm., 264 Or 574 , 507 P2d 23 (1973) states: "In proving that the change is in conformance with the comprehensive plan in this case, the proof, at a minimum, should show (1) there is a public need for a change of the kind in question, and (2) that need will be best se 1976In such cases, the goal in question would not be part of the criteria constituting the applicable legal standard. 7 Compliance with the applicable goals is a substantive legal requirement, but the process of demonstrating compliance via adequate findings is a procedural matter which is discussed below. 8 Fasano v. Washington Co. Comm., 264 Or 574 , 507 P2d 23 (1973) states: "In proving that the change is in conformance with the comprehensive plan in this case, the proof, at a minimum, should show (1) there is a public need for a change of the kind in question, and (2) that need will be best se | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.