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 1915–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clackamas County Assessor v. Crewgreen1 sentence2026See Crew, 21 OTR at 362 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bank of California National Ass'n v. Portland Hide & Wool Co.
neutral
2 sentences1943A. 69-406) which are as follows: “To constitute notice of an infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating the same, the person to whom it is negotiated must have had actual knowledge of the infirmity or defect, or knowledge of such facts that his action in taking the instrument amounted to bad faith.” Defendants rely strongly upon Bank of California National Ass’n v. Portland Hide & Wool Co., 131 Or. 123 , 282 Pac. 99 (1929), in which the court applied the provisions of the foregoing statute and observed that *298 “The strictness of the general equity doctrine o 1943A. 69-406) which are as follows: “To constitute notice of an infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating the same, the person to whom it is negotiated must have had actual knowledge of the infirmity or defect, or knowledge of such facts that his action in taking the instrument amounted to bad faith.” Defendants rely strongly upon Bank of California National Ass’n v. Portland Hide & Wool Co., 131 Or. 123 , 282 Pac. 99 (1929), in which the court applied the provisions of the foregoing statute and observed that *298 “The strictness of the general equity doctrine o | 3 | 1931–1943 |
Dight v. Chapman
green
2 sentences1915In some jurisdictions the rule is made to depend upon' the-theory of identification whereby the agent is deemed to be the alter ego of the principal; and in this, as perhaps in the majority of jurisdictions, the same conclusion is reached by declaring that the agent is pre su'med to have performed his duty by communicating his knowledge tp the principal: Dight v. Chapman, 44 Or. 265 ( 75 Pac. 585 , 65 L. 1915In some jurisdictions the rule is made to depend upon' the-theory of identification whereby the agent is deemed to be the alter ego of the principal; and in this, as perhaps in the majority of jurisdictions, the same conclusion is reached by declaring that the agent is pre su'med to have performed his duty by communicating his knowledge tp the principal: Dight v. Chapman, 44 Or. 265 ( 75 Pac. 585 , 65 L. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.