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.
6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cookmangreen2 sentences2004See State v. MacNab, *168 334 Or 469, 474 , 51 P3d 1249 (2002); see also State v. Fugate, 332 Or 195, 210 , 26 P3d 802 (2001) (citing State v. Cookman, 324 Or 19, 25 , 920 P2d 1086 (1996), for ex post facto analytical paradigm). 2004See State v. MacNab, *168 334 Or 469, 474 , 51 P3d 1249 (2002); see also State v. Fugate, 332 Or 195, 210 , 26 P3d 802 (2001) (citing State v. Cookman, 324 Or 19, 25 , 920 P2d 1086 (1996), for ex post facto analytical paradigm). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Fugategreen2 sentences2004See State v. MacNab, *168 334 Or 469, 474 , 51 P3d 1249 (2002); see also State v. Fugate, 332 Or 195, 210 , 26 P3d 802 (2001) (citing State v. Cookman, 324 Or 19, 25 , 920 P2d 1086 (1996), for ex post facto analytical paradigm). 2004See State v. MacNab, *168 334 Or 469, 474 , 51 P3d 1249 (2002); see also State v. Fugate, 332 Or 195, 210 , 26 P3d 802 (2001) (citing State v. Cookman, 324 Or 19, 25 , 920 P2d 1086 (1996), for ex post facto analytical paradigm). | 2 | 3 |
AFSCME Local 2623 v. Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2022See AFSCME Local 2623 v. Dept. of Corrections, 315 Or 74, 79 , 843 P2d 409 (1992) (explaining that “the legality of any 2 Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution provides: “No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restrict- ing the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.” *31 particular application of the rules is premature, and not subject to review under ORS 183.400”). 2022See AFSCME Local 2623 v. Dept. of Corrections, 315 Or 74, 79 , 843 P2d 409 (1992) (explaining that “the legality of any 2 Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution provides: “No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restrict- ing the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.” *31 particular application of the rules is premature, and not subject to review under ORS 183.400”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. MacNabgreen2 sentences2004See State v. MacNab, *168 334 Or 469, 474 , 51 P3d 1249 (2002); see also State v. Fugate, 332 Or 195, 210 , 26 P3d 802 (2001) (citing State v. Cookman, 324 Or 19, 25 , 920 P2d 1086 (1996), for ex post facto analytical paradigm). 2004See State v. MacNab, *168 334 Or 469, 474 , 51 P3d 1249 (2002); see also State v. Fugate, 332 Or 195, 210 , 26 P3d 802 (2001) (citing State v. Cookman, 324 Or 19, 25 , 920 P2d 1086 (1996), for ex post facto analytical paradigm). | 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. Wille
green
2 sentences2004Although the Oregon Supreme Court in the past has “construe[d] these particular state and federal provisions without distinguishing them,” State v. Wille, 317 Or 487, 502 , 858 P2d 128 (1993), its constitutional methodology requires that we first consider petitioner’s argument under Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution. 2004Although the Oregon Supreme Court in the past has “construe[d] these particular state and federal provisions without distinguishing them,” State v. Wille, 317 Or 487, 502 , 858 P2d 128 (1993), its constitutional methodology requires that we first consider petitioner’s argument under Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution. | 2 | 2002–2004 |
Sims v. Besaw's Café
green
2 sentences2020We conclude that (1) the ordinance does not fall within the scope of the prohibition in ORS 91.225 on local rent control ordinances, (2) the ordinance is not implicitly preempted by ORS 90.427 (2017), because that statute sets out only minimum requirements for no-cause terminations, (3) plaintiffs failed to make a cognizable argument under Article I, section 21, and (4) plaintiffs’ argument regarding the private cause of action is foreclosed by Sims v. Besaw’s Cafe, 165 Or App 180 , 997 P2d 201 (2000). 2020We conclude that (1) the ordinance does not fall within the scope of the prohibition in ORS 91.225 on local rent control ordinances, (2) the ordinance is not implicitly preempted by ORS 90.427 (2017), because that statute sets out only minimum requirements for no-cause terminations, (3) plaintiffs failed to make a cognizable argument under Article I, section 21, and (4) plaintiffs’ argument regarding the private cause of action is foreclosed by Sims v. Besaw’s Cafe, 165 Or App 180 , 997 P2d 201 (2000). | 1 | 2020–2020 |