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 1987–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Dankegreen2 sentences1993Plas v. Superior Court, 155 Cal App 3d 1008, 202 Cal Rptr 490 n 5 (Cal App 1984); In re Danke, 169 Mich App 453 , 426 NW2d 740, 742 (1988); Curtis v. Curtis, 574 So 2d 24, 30 (Miss 1990); Catlin v. Catlin, 494 NW2d 581 (ND 1992). 7 “Default jurisdiction” may also exist in Oregon if “another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum.” ORS 109.730(l)(d) [§ 3(a)(4)]. 1993Plas v. Superior Court, 155 Cal App 3d 1008, 202 Cal Rptr 490 n 5 (Cal App 1984); In re Danke, 169 Mich App 453 , 426 NW2d 740, 742 (1988); Curtis v. Curtis, 574 So 2d 24, 30 (Miss 1990); Catlin v. Catlin, 494 NW2d 581 (ND 1992). 7 “Default jurisdiction” may also exist in Oregon if “another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum.” ORS 109.730(l)(d) [§ 3(a)(4)]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Marriage of Boldt
green
2 sentences2020A parent who seeks to change custody must demonstrate that “ ‘(1) after the original judgment or the last order affecting custody, circumstances relevant to the capacity of either the moving party or the legal custodian to take care of the child properly have changed, and (2) considering 2 The court did not make any additional findings relevant to our review. *773 the asserted change of circumstances in the context of all relevant evidence, it would be in the child’s best interests to change custody from the legal custodian to the moving party.’ ” Botofan-Miller, 365 Or at 520 (quoting Boldt a 2020A parent who seeks to change custody must demonstrate that “ ‘(1) after the original judgment or the last order affecting custody, circumstances relevant to the capacity of either the moving party or the legal custodian to take care of the child properly have changed, and (2) considering 2 The court did not make any additional findings relevant to our review. *773 the asserted change of circumstances in the context of all relevant evidence, it would be in the child’s best interests to change custody from the legal custodian to the moving party.’ ” Botofan-Miller, 365 Or at 520 (quoting Boldt a | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Botofan-Miller v. Miller
green
1 sentence2020A parent who seeks to change custody must demonstrate that “ ‘(1) after the original judgment or the last order affecting custody, circumstances relevant to the capacity of either the moving party or the legal custodian to take care of the child properly have changed, and (2) considering 2 The court did not make any additional findings relevant to our review. *773 the asserted change of circumstances in the context of all relevant evidence, it would be in the child’s best interests to change custody from the legal custodian to the moving party.’ ” Botofan-Miller, 365 Or at 520 (quoting Boldt a | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sears v. Sears
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 498 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Johns
neutral
1 sentence1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Catlin v. Catlin
green
1 sentence1993Plas v. Superior Court, 155 Cal App 3d 1008, 202 Cal Rptr 490 n 5 (Cal App 1984); In re Danke, 169 Mich App 453 , 426 NW2d 740, 742 (1988); Curtis v. Curtis, 574 So 2d 24, 30 (Miss 1990); Catlin v. Catlin, 494 NW2d 581 (ND 1992). 7 “Default jurisdiction” may also exist in Oregon if “another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum.” ORS 109.730(l)(d) [§ 3(a)(4)]. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Chandler v. State
green
2 sentences1987For these reasons, the Court of Appeals was correct to order in camera inspection by the trial judge, rather than permit defendant and defense attorney direct access to the files. *434 In Chandler v. State, 230 Or 452 , 370 P2d 626 (1962), a father sought access to Welfare Department files in a custody hearing. 1987For these reasons, the Court of Appeals was correct to order in camera inspection by the trial judge, rather than permit defendant and defense attorney direct access to the files. *434 In Chandler v. State, 230 Or 452 , 370 P2d 626 (1962), a father sought access to Welfare Department files in a custody hearing. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.