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.
8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffengreen2 sentences1993Defendant raised the defense that he had a constitutional right under Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution to stand on the sidewalk for the purpose of collecting signatures on an initiative petition and that, therefore, the order for him to leave was not lawful. 1 In my opinion, the Fred Meyer “one-stop shopping center” located within the Raleigh Hills Shopping Center is sufficiently analogous to the Lloyd Center in Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen, 315 Or 500 , 849 P2d 446 (1993) (Whiffen II), and to the Clackamas Town Center in Clackamas Town Center Assoc. v. Wolf, 315 Or 557 , 849 1993Defendant raised the defense that he had a constitutional right under Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution to stand on the sidewalk for the purpose of collecting signatures on an initiative petition and that, therefore, the order for him to leave was not lawful. 1 In my opinion, the Fred Meyer “one-stop shopping center” located within the Raleigh Hills Shopping Center is sufficiently analogous to the Lloyd Center in Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen, 315 Or 500 , 849 P2d 446 (1993) (Whiffen II), and to the Clackamas Town Center in Clackamas Town Center Assoc. v. Wolf, 315 Or 557 , 849 | 1 | 5 |
Clackamas Town Center Associates v. Wolfgreen2 sentences1993Defendant raised the defense that he had a constitutional right under Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution to stand on the sidewalk for the purpose of collecting signatures on an initiative petition and that, therefore, the order for him to leave was not lawful. 1 In my opinion, the Fred Meyer “one-stop shopping center” located within the Raleigh Hills Shopping Center is sufficiently analogous to the Lloyd Center in Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen, 315 Or 500 , 849 P2d 446 (1993) (Whiffen II), and to the Clackamas Town Center in Clackamas Town Center Assoc. v. Wolf, 315 Or 557 , 849 1993Defendant raised the defense that he had a constitutional right under Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution to stand on the sidewalk for the purpose of collecting signatures on an initiative petition and that, therefore, the order for him to leave was not lawful. 1 In my opinion, the Fred Meyer “one-stop shopping center” located within the Raleigh Hills Shopping Center is sufficiently analogous to the Lloyd Center in Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen, 315 Or 500 , 849 P2d 446 (1993) (Whiffen II), and to the Clackamas Town Center in Clackamas Town Center Assoc. v. Wolf, 315 Or 557 , 849 | 1 | 2 |
Armatta v. Kitzhabergreen2 sentences2006See id. at 277 , 959 P.2d 49 (stating that separate-vote requirement encompasses notion that a single constitutional amendment must contain a single subject). 2006See id. at 277 , 959 P.2d 49 (stating that separate-vote requirement encompasses notion that a single constitutional amendment must contain a single subject). | 1 | 1 |
Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc.green2 sentences2000Id. at 497 , 958 P.2d 854 (Landau, J., dissenting). 2000Id. at 497 (Landau, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lehman v. Bradbury
green
1 sentence2012Rather, those changes were necessary to imposition of death as a penalty for aggravated murder in this state. *525 As articulated in the passage from Lehman, 333 Or at 246 , quoted above, the next step in the separate vote analysis would require that we consider whether the constitutional provisions that Measure 6 affects are closely related. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2000Id. at 90 , 506 P.2d 163 . 2000Id. at 90 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Humphers v. First Interstate Bank
green
2 sentences1999Plaintiffs assert that the Oregon Supreme Court recognized such a privacy right under Article I, section 1, and Article I, section 33, in Humphers v. First Interstate Bank, 298 Or 706 , 696 P2d 527 (1985). 1999Plaintiffs assert that the Oregon Supreme Court recognized such a privacy right under Article I, section 1, and Article I, section 33, in Humphers v. First Interstate Bank, 298 Or 706 , 696 P2d 527 (1985). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Wabban, Inc. v. Brookhart
green
2 sentences1998In 1996, for example, we acknowledged Whiffen II for the proposition that “ ‘prohibiting] the gathering of signatures on initiative petitions in the common areas of large shopping centers such as the Lloyd Center would “impinge on constitutional rights” conferred on the citizens of this state by the provisions of Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution.’ ” Wabban, Inc., v. Brookhart, 142 Or App 261, 264 , 921 P2d 409 , rev den 324 Or 395 (1996) (citing Whiffen II, 315 Or at 514). 1998In 1996, for example, we acknowledged Whiffen II for the proposition that “ ‘prohibiting] the gathering of signatures on initiative petitions in the common areas of large shopping centers such as the Lloyd Center would “impinge on constitutional rights” conferred on the citizens of this state by the provisions of Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution.’ ” Wabban, Inc., v. Brookhart, 142 Or App 261, 264 , 921 P2d 409 , rev den 324 Or 395 (1996) (citing Whiffen II, 315 Or at 514). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Safeway, Inc. v. Jane Does 1 through 50
green
2 sentences1998In Safeway, Inc. v. Jane Does 1 through 50, 141 Or.App. 541, 545 , 920 P.2d 168 (1996), this court summarized what is involved in determining whether a shopping center is required to allow initiative petitioning: "Whether a right exists under Article IV, section 1, to gather signatures for initiative petitioners in the common areas of large privately owned shopping centers open to the public for commercial purposes depends on more than [the size of the shopping center and the type of goods it sells]. 1998In Safeway, Inc. v. Jane Does 1 through 50, 141 Or.App. 541, 545 , 920 P.2d 168 (1996), this court summarized what is involved in determining whether a shopping center is required to allow initiative petitioning: "Whether a right exists under Article IV, section 1, to gather signatures for initiative petitioners in the common areas of large privately owned shopping centers open to the public for commercial purposes depends on more than [the size of the shopping center and the type of goods it sells]. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen
green
2 sentences1993In Whiffen II, supra, this court held that “persons seeking signatures on initiative petitions in the common areas of the Lloyd Center have a constitutional right to do so under Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions,” 315 Or at 503, based in part on this court’s previous holding in Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen, 307 Or 674 , 773 P2d 1294 (1989) (Whiffen I), that “ ‘the process of gathering signatures is substantially impaired’ if signature gatherers are not permitted to gather signatures in the common areas of large shoppin 1993In Whiffen II, supra, this court held that “persons seeking signatures on initiative petitions in the common areas of the Lloyd Center have a constitutional right to do so under Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions,” 315 Or at 503, based in part on this court’s previous holding in Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen, 307 Or 674 , 773 P2d 1294 (1989) (Whiffen I), that “ ‘the process of gathering signatures is substantially impaired’ if signature gatherers are not permitted to gather signatures in the common areas of large shoppin | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.