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 1989–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. Hansengreen2 sentences1998See, e.g., Lee v. Hanson, 282 Or 371, 375 , 578 P2d 784 (1978) (possession of realty under the mistaken belief of ownership satisfies the element of hostility without the need for further inquiry into the claimant’s subjective intent, but the belief must result from pure mistake, rather than a mistake based upon conscious doubt). 1998See, e.g., Lee v. Hanson, 282 Or 371, 375 , 578 P2d 784 (1978) (possession of realty under the mistaken belief of ownership satisfies the element of hostility without the need for further inquiry into the claimant’s subjective intent, but the belief must result from pure mistake, rather than a mistake based upon conscious doubt). | 1 | 3 |
Walters v. Renogreen1 sentence2026See Walters v. Reno, 145 F3d 1032 , 1042 n 4 (9th Cir 1998), cert den, 526 US 1003 (1999) (noting that “[b]ecause the government elected to provide some information in a language other than English, however, it created the possibility that the partial use of bilingual forms would result in greater confusion than if it had used monolingual forms exclusively”).7 7 As noted, OED asserts that Spanish speakers had “inquiry notice.” As also noted, however, the trial court’s ruling was specific to Spanish speakers who “could not read English well enough to realize that not every part of the notice wa | 1 | 1 |
Ramallo v. Renogreen1 sentence2026See Walters v. Reno, 145 F3d 1032 , 1042 n 4 (9th Cir 1998), cert den, 526 US 1003 (1999) (noting that “[b]ecause the government elected to provide some information in a language other than English, however, it created the possibility that the partial use of bilingual forms would result in greater confusion than if it had used monolingual forms exclusively”).7 7 As noted, OED asserts that Spanish speakers had “inquiry notice.” As also noted, however, the trial court’s ruling was specific to Spanish speakers who “could not read English well enough to realize that not every part of the notice wa | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chard v. Galton
green
2 sentences2004Because affirming that conclusion would obviate the need for further inquiry, we deal with it first. *701 The privilege in question immunizes an attorney for defamatory statements he or she makes “in commtmications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institution of, or during the course and as a part of a judicial proceeding in which he participates as counsel, if it has some relation thereto.” Chard v. Galton, 277 Or 109, 112 , 559 P2d 1280 (1977) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 586 (1974)). 2004Because affirming that conclusion would obviate the need for further inquiry, we deal with it first. *701 The privilege in question immunizes an attorney for defamatory statements he or she makes “in commtmications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institution of, or during the course and as a part of a judicial proceeding in which he participates as counsel, if it has some relation thereto.” Chard v. Galton, 277 Or 109, 112 , 559 P2d 1280 (1977) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 586 (1974)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Ramstead v. Morgan
green
2 sentences2004The absolute privilege “is based upon the ground that ‘there are certain relations of life in which it is so important that the persons engaged in them should be able to speak freely that the law takes the risk of their abusing the occasion and speaking maliciously as well as untruly, * * * in order that their duties may be carried on freely and without fear of any action being brought against them ***.’” Ramstead v. Morgan, 219 Or 383, 387 , 347 P2d 594 (1959) (internal citations omitted). 2004The absolute privilege “is based upon the ground that ‘there are certain relations of life in which it is so important that the persons engaged in them should be able to speak freely that the law takes the risk of their abusing the occasion and speaking maliciously as well as untruly, * * * in order that their duties may be carried on freely and without fear of any action being brought against them ***.’” Ramstead v. Morgan, 219 Or 383, 387 , 347 P2d 594 (1959) (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Slak v. Porter
green
1 sentence1997Id. 3 The key questions in the present case are whether plaintiffs possession of the easement was “hostile,” and whether it was “continuous.” 4 “Possession of realty under a mistaken belief of ownership normally satisfies the element of hostility without the need for further inquiry into the claimant’s subjective intent, but the belief must result from a ‘pure mistake,’ rather than a mistake based upon a ‘conscious doubt.’ ” Lee v. Hansen, 282 Or 371, 375 , 578 P2d 784 (1978). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Mascall v. Murray
green
2 sentences1989Mascall v. Murray, 76 Or 637, 643-44 , 149 P 517 (1915). *331 Possession of realty under a mistaken belief of ownership normally satisfies the element of hostility without the need for further inquiry into the claimant’s subjective intent, but the belief must result from a “pure mistake,” rather than a mistake based upon a “conscious doubt.” 3 Lee v. Hansen, 282 Or 371, 375 , 578 P2d 784 (1978); Norgard et al v. Busher et ux, supra, n 3. 1989Mascall v. Murray, 76 Or 637, 643-44 , 149 P 517 (1915). *331 Possession of realty under a mistaken belief of ownership normally satisfies the element of hostility without the need for further inquiry into the claimant’s subjective intent, but the belief must result from a “pure mistake,” rather than a mistake based upon a “conscious doubt.” 3 Lee v. Hansen, 282 Or 371, 375 , 578 P2d 784 (1978); Norgard et al v. Busher et ux, supra, n 3. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.