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 1895–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Orowheat-Bimbo Bakeries USA-BBU, Inc. v. Vargasgreen2 sentences2022Orowheat-Bimbo Bakeries v. Vargas, 287 Or App 331, 335, 337 , 401 P3d 1256 (2017) (requirement that the worker see only MCO-approved physicians applies only to accepted claims); ORS 656.245(4)(b)(D) (“If the claim is denied, the worker may receive medical services after the date of denial from sources other than the managed care organization until the denial is reversed.”). 3 The MCO ultimately facilitated claimant’s examination by a different occupational medicine specialist, Dr. Kerfoot, who became claimant’s attending physician. *327 facts. 2022Orowheat-Bimbo Bakeries v. Vargas, 287 Or App 331, 335, 337 , 401 P3d 1256 (2017) (requirement that the worker see only MCO-approved physicians applies only to accepted claims); ORS 656.245(4)(b)(D) (“If the claim is denied, the worker may receive medical services after the date of denial from sources other than the managed care organization until the denial is reversed.”). 3 The MCO ultimately facilitated claimant’s examination by a different occupational medicine specialist, Dr. Kerfoot, who became claimant’s attending physician. *327 facts. | 1 | 1 |
Baldro v. Tolmiegreen1 sentence2008See, e.g.,Baldro v. Tolmie, 1 Or 176 (1855) (holdingvalid five-year statute of limitation adopted by territorial government in 1844 and recognized by territorial government on August 14, 1848); McLaughlin v. Hoover, 1 Or 31 (1853) (upholding statutes of limitation adopted in 1849 and 1853). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McLaughlin v. Hoover
green
1 sentence2008See, e.g.,Baldro v. Tolmie, 1 Or 176 (1855) (holdingvalid five-year statute of limitation adopted by territorial government in 1844 and recognized by territorial government on August 14, 1848); McLaughlin v. Hoover, 1 Or 31 (1853) (upholding statutes of limitation adopted in 1849 and 1853). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Stotts v. Dichdel
green
2 sentences1927In Stotts v. Dichdel, 70 Or. 86 ( 139 Pac. 932 ), this court said: “To establish a highway by prescription, the land impressed with the use must have been used by the public with the actual or implied knowledge of the land owner, adversely under claim or color of right, and not merely by the owner’s permission, and uninterruptedly and substantially by way of a defined road for the period required to bar an action for the recovery of possession of land.” And in Curtis v. LaGrande Water Co., 20 Or. 34 ( 23 Pac. 808 , 10 L. 1927In Stotts v. Dichdel, 70 Or. 86 ( 139 Pac. 932 ), this court said: “To establish a highway by prescription, the land impressed with the use must have been used by the public with the actual or implied knowledge of the land owner, adversely under claim or color of right, and not merely by the owner’s permission, and uninterruptedly and substantially by way of a defined road for the period required to bar an action for the recovery of possession of land.” And in Curtis v. LaGrande Water Co., 20 Or. 34 ( 23 Pac. 808 , 10 L. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Giervolini v. Succession of Rodríguez
green
1 sentence1927In Stotts v. Dichdel, 70 Or. 86 ( 139 Pac. 932 ), this court said: “To establish a highway by prescription, the land impressed with the use must have been used by the public with the actual or implied knowledge of the land owner, adversely under claim or color of right, and not merely by the owner’s permission, and uninterruptedly and substantially by way of a defined road for the period required to bar an action for the recovery of possession of land.” And in Curtis v. LaGrande Water Co., 20 Or. 34 ( 23 Pac. 808 , 10 L. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Curtis v. La Grande Hydraulic Water Co.
green
1 sentence1927In Stotts v. Dichdel, 70 Or. 86 ( 139 Pac. 932 ), this court said: “To establish a highway by prescription, the land impressed with the use must have been used by the public with the actual or implied knowledge of the land owner, adversely under claim or color of right, and not merely by the owner’s permission, and uninterruptedly and substantially by way of a defined road for the period required to bar an action for the recovery of possession of land.” And in Curtis v. LaGrande Water Co., 20 Or. 34 ( 23 Pac. 808 , 10 L. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Bayard v. Standard Oil Co.
green
2 sentences1914To establish a highway by prescription, the land impressed with the use must have been used by the public with the actual or implied knowledge of the land owner, adversely under claim or color of right, and not merely by the owner’s permission, and uninterruptedly and substantially by way of a defined road for the period required to bar an action for the recovery of possession of land: Bayard v. Standard Oil Co., 38 Or. 438 ( 63 Pac. 614 ); Parrott v. Stewart, 65 Or. 254 ( 132 Pac. 523 ); 37 Cyc. 21. 1914To establish a highway by prescription, the land impressed with the use must have been used by the public with the actual or implied knowledge of the land owner, adversely under claim or color of right, and not merely by the owner’s permission, and uninterruptedly and substantially by way of a defined road for the period required to bar an action for the recovery of possession of land: Bayard v. Standard Oil Co., 38 Or. 438 ( 63 Pac. 614 ); Parrott v. Stewart, 65 Or. 254 ( 132 Pac. 523 ); 37 Cyc. 21. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Parrott v. Stewart
green
2 sentences1914To establish a highway by prescription, the land impressed with the use must have been used by the public with the actual or implied knowledge of the land owner, adversely under claim or color of right, and not merely by the owner’s permission, and uninterruptedly and substantially by way of a defined road for the period required to bar an action for the recovery of possession of land: Bayard v. Standard Oil Co., 38 Or. 438 ( 63 Pac. 614 ); Parrott v. Stewart, 65 Or. 254 ( 132 Pac. 523 ); 37 Cyc. 21. 1914To establish a highway by prescription, the land impressed with the use must have been used by the public with the actual or implied knowledge of the land owner, adversely under claim or color of right, and not merely by the owner’s permission, and uninterruptedly and substantially by way of a defined road for the period required to bar an action for the recovery of possession of land: Bayard v. Standard Oil Co., 38 Or. 438 ( 63 Pac. 614 ); Parrott v. Stewart, 65 Or. 254 ( 132 Pac. 523 ); 37 Cyc. 21. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Springer v. Young
green
1 sentence1895Under this statute it has been held that the same period which will bar an action for the recovery of real property will bar a suit touching a claim or interest therein, which is ten years: Springer v. Young, 14 Or. 285 ( 12 Pac. 400 ). | 1 | 1895–1895 |
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.