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.
9 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
McNeely v. Oregongreen1 sentence2019See State v. McNeely, 330 Or 457, 468 , 8 P3d 212 , cert den, 531 US 1055 (2000) (“Defendant’s summary reference to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments is insufficient to present any specific federal constitutional argument to this court and, accordingly, we decline to address the issue.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McNeelygreen2 sentences2019See State v. McNeely, 330 Or 457, 468 , 8 P3d 212 , cert den, 531 US 1055 (2000) (“Defendant’s summary reference to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments is insufficient to present any specific federal constitutional argument to this court and, accordingly, we decline to address the issue.”). 2019See State v. McNeely, 330 Or 457, 468 , 8 P3d 212 , cert den, 531 US 1055 (2000) (“Defendant’s summary reference to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments is insufficient to present any specific federal constitutional argument to this court and, accordingly, we decline to address the issue.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cunninghamgreen2 sentences2006See State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 65-68 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, *605 514 US 1005 (1995) (rejecting arguments under Article I, section 20, of Oregon Constitution, and both Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to United States Constitution). 2006See State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 65-68 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, *605 514 US 1005 (1995) (rejecting arguments under Article I, section 20, of Oregon Constitution, and both Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to United States Constitution). | 1 | 1 |
Cunningham v. Oregongreen1 sentence2006See State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 65-68 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, *605 514 US 1005 (1995) (rejecting arguments under Article I, section 20, of Oregon Constitution, and both Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to United States Constitution). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gravesgreen2 sentences1993State v. Graves, supra, 299 Or at 195 ; State v. Robertson, supra, 293 Or at 407 . 1993State v. Graves, supra, 299 Or. at 195, 700 P.2d 244 ; State v. Robertson, supra, 293 Or. at 407 , 649 P.2d 569 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hale v. Port of Portland
red
2 sentences1994The Court of Appeals also rejected plaintiffs challenge under Article I, section 20, on the ground that the prohibition against providing special treatment to favored individuals or classes of citizens applies only to a “true class” while the classifications on which plaintiff relied as a basis for *422 the argument under Article I, section 20, were created by statute and not based on “antecedent personal or social characteristics or societal status.” Id. at 227-28 (quoting Hale v. Port of Portland, 308 Or 508, 525 , 783 P2d 506 (1989)). 1994The Court of Appeals also rejected plaintiffs challenge under Article I, section 20, on the ground that the prohibition against providing special treatment to favored individuals or classes of citizens applies only to a “true class” while the classifications on which plaintiff relied as a basis for *422 the argument under Article I, section 20, were created by statute and not based on “antecedent personal or social characteristics or societal status.” Id. at 227-28 (quoting Hale v. Port of Portland, 308 Or 508, 525 , 783 P2d 506 (1989)). | 2 | 1994–2006 |
State v. Savastano
green
2 sentences2020An executive official’s decision will be defensible when there is a rational explanation for the differential treatment that is reasonably related to the official’s task or to the person’s individual situation.” State v. Savastano, 354 Or 64, 96 , 309 P3d 1083 (2013) (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). *791 Defendant’s individual-based argument under Article I, section 20, is similar to his class-based claim inso- far as he argues that the privilege of being exempted from sex offender reporting was denied to him but is available to others in similar situations. 2020An executive official’s decision will be defensible when there is a rational explanation for the differential treatment that is reasonably related to the official’s task or to the person’s individual situation.” State v. Savastano, 354 Or 64, 96 , 309 P3d 1083 (2013) (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). *791 Defendant’s individual-based argument under Article I, section 20, is similar to his class-based claim inso- far as he argues that the privilege of being exempted from sex offender reporting was denied to him but is available to others in similar situations. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Clark
green
1 sentence2003He contends that the board has “applied a law so as to * * * deny privileges or immunities to an individual person without legitimate reasons related to that person’s individual situation.” Id. at 239 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
In Re the Marriage of Crocker
green
2 sentences2001Article I, section 20, provides: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.” The Oregon Supreme Court has recently announced: *475 “An equal privileges analysis in this context under Article I, section 20, requires us to determine: (1) whether the legislature had authority to act; (2) whether one class of persons receives privileges that the other does not; and (3) whether the disparate treatment had a rational basis.” Crocker and Crocker, 332 Or 42, 54 , 22 P3d 759 (2001) 2001Article I, section 20, provides: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.” The Oregon Supreme Court has recently announced: *475 “An equal privileges analysis in this context under Article I, section 20, requires us to determine: (1) whether the legislature had authority to act; (2) whether one class of persons receives privileges that the other does not; and (3) whether the disparate treatment had a rational basis.” Crocker and Crocker, 332 Or 42, 54 , 22 P3d 759 (2001) | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Ag West Supply v. Hall
yellow
1 sentence1997Id. *127 As with its equal protection argument, plaintiff also asserts that ORS 377.756 violates Article I, section 20, because it grants civic or nonprofit applicants a “special privilege” by allowing them to “get permits to display any speech they want.” For the same reasons that we rejected plaintiffs equal protection claim, 150 Or App at 124-25, we decline to address its argument under Article I, section 20. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Neher v. Chartier
green
1 sentence1994The Court of Appeals also rejected plaintiffs challenge under Article I, section 20, on the ground that the prohibition against providing special treatment to favored individuals or classes of citizens applies only to a “true class” while the classifications on which plaintiff relied as a basis for *422 the argument under Article I, section 20, were created by statute and not based on “antecedent personal or social characteristics or societal status.” Id. at 227-28 (quoting Hale v. Port of Portland, 308 Or 508, 525 , 783 P2d 506 (1989)). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Robertson
green
2 sentences1993State v. Graves, supra, 299 Or at 195 ; State v. Robertson, supra, 293 Or at 407 . 1993State v. Graves, supra, 299 Or. at 195, 700 P.2d 244 ; State v. Robertson, supra, 293 Or. at 407 , 649 P.2d 569 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |