5 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1914–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kramer v. City of Lake Oswegogreen1 sentence2020That obligation is “consistent with a * * * basic principle of trust law: that a trustee has a duty to protect trust property and to ensure, consistently with any requirements and prohibi- tions specific to the trust, that trust property is managed in a way that will benefit trust beneficiaries.” Kramer, 365 Or at 446 (internal quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Idaho v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe of Idahogreen2 sentences2020Co. v. State Tax Com., 156 Or 505, 511 , 62 P2d 7 (1936), cert den, 301 US 689 , 57 S Ct 793 , 81 L Ed 1346 (1937) (explaining that, “although title passed to the state by virtue of its sovereignty, its rights were merely those of a trustee for the public” and that the purpose of the trust doctrine was to ensure that the resources “remain public so that all persons may use them”); accord Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 US 261, 285 , 117 S Ct 2028 , 138 L Ed 2d 438 (1997) (describing state’s duty under public trust doctrine as an “obligation to regulate, improve, and secure submerged 2020Co. v. State Tax Com., 156 Or 505, 511 , 62 P2d 7 (1936), cert den, 301 US 689 , 57 S Ct 793 , 81 L Ed 1346 (1937) (explaining that, “although title passed to the state by virtue of its sovereignty, its rights were merely those of a trustee for the public” and that the purpose of the trust doctrine was to ensure that the resources “remain public so that all persons may use them”); accord Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 US 261, 285 , 117 S Ct 2028 , 138 L Ed 2d 438 (1997) (describing state’s duty under public trust doctrine as an “obligation to regulate, improve, and secure submerged | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ross
green
2 sentences1960A wrongful conversion of money of another intrusted to a *583 bailee or a failure, neglect or refusal to deliver, keep, or account for such money according to the nature of the trust would be a violation of the statute: State v. Ross, 55 Or. 450 ( 104 Pac. 596 , 106 Pac. 1022 , 42 L.R.A. 1960A wrongful conversion of money of another intrusted to a *583 bailee or a failure, neglect or refusal to deliver, keep, or account for such money according to the nature of the trust would be a violation of the statute: State v. Ross, 55 Or. 450 ( 104 Pac. 596 , 106 Pac. 1022 , 42 L.R.A. | 2 | 1914–1960 |
Hatfield v. Guay
green
1 sentence2020Co. v. State Tax Com., 156 Or 505, 511 , 62 P2d 7 (1936), cert den, 301 US 689 , 57 S Ct 793 , 81 L Ed 1346 (1937) (explaining that, “although title passed to the state by virtue of its sovereignty, its rights were merely those of a trustee for the public” and that the purpose of the trust doctrine was to ensure that the resources “remain public so that all persons may use them”); accord Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 US 261, 285 , 117 S Ct 2028 , 138 L Ed 2d 438 (1997) (describing state’s duty under public trust doctrine as an “obligation to regulate, improve, and secure submerged | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Chapman v. Reese
neutral
1 sentence2020Co. v. State Tax Com., 156 Or 505, 511 , 62 P2d 7 (1936), cert den, 301 US 689 , 57 S Ct 793 , 81 L Ed 1346 (1937) (explaining that, “although title passed to the state by virtue of its sovereignty, its rights were merely those of a trustee for the public” and that the purpose of the trust doctrine was to ensure that the resources “remain public so that all persons may use them”); accord Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 US 261, 285 , 117 S Ct 2028 , 138 L Ed 2d 438 (1997) (describing state’s duty under public trust doctrine as an “obligation to regulate, improve, and secure submerged | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Winston Bros. v. State Tax Commission
green
2 sentences2020Co. v. State Tax Com., 156 Or 505, 511 , 62 P2d 7 (1936), cert den, 301 US 689 , 57 S Ct 793 , 81 L Ed 1346 (1937) (explaining that, “although title passed to the state by virtue of its sovereignty, its rights were merely those of a trustee for the public” and that the purpose of the trust doctrine was to ensure that the resources “remain public so that all persons may use them”); accord Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 US 261, 285 , 117 S Ct 2028 , 138 L Ed 2d 438 (1997) (describing state’s duty under public trust doctrine as an “obligation to regulate, improve, and secure submerged 2020Co. v. State Tax Com., 156 Or 505, 511 , 62 P2d 7 (1936), cert den, 301 US 689 , 57 S Ct 793 , 81 L Ed 1346 (1937) (explaining that, “although title passed to the state by virtue of its sovereignty, its rights were merely those of a trustee for the public” and that the purpose of the trust doctrine was to ensure that the resources “remain public so that all persons may use them”); accord Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 US 261, 285 , 117 S Ct 2028 , 138 L Ed 2d 438 (1997) (describing state’s duty under public trust doctrine as an “obligation to regulate, improve, and secure submerged | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Purcelly v. State
neutral
1 sentence1960(N.S.) 601, 613); Purcelly v. State, 29 Tex. App. 1 ( 13 S.W. 993 ); 25 Cyc. 98b. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Lippincott v. Lippincott
green
1 sentence1960Lippincott v. Lippincott, 349 Pa 501, 37 A2d 741 (1944). | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Sabin v. Columbia Fuel Co.
green
2 sentences1914The existence of the trust doctrine as applicable to the assets of a corporation which is a “going concern” has been denied by this court: Sabin v. Columbia Fuel Co., 25 Or. 15 ( 34 Pac. 692 , 35 Pac. 854 , 42 Am. 1914The existence of the trust doctrine as applicable to the assets of a corporation which is a “going concern” has been denied by this court: Sabin v. Columbia Fuel Co., 25 Or. 15 ( 34 Pac. 692 , 35 Pac. 854 , 42 Am. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.