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 2002–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hammond v. Central Lane Communications Centergreen2 sentences2015As pertinent here, a plaintiff may recover for purely psychic injury “where the defendant’s conduct infringed on some legally protected interest apart from causing the claimed distress ***.” Hammond, 312 Or at 23 (emphasis added); see also Phillips v. Lincoln County School District, 161 Or App 429, 432-33 , 984 P2d 947 (1999) (“[T]he term ‘legally protected interest’ refers to an independent basis of liability separate from the general duty to avoid foreseeable risk of harm.”); Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 148 Or App 607, 612-18 , 941 P2d 602 (1997), aff’d on other grounds, 327 Or 9 , 95 2002See Hammond v. Central Lane Communications Center, 312 Or 17, 22-23 , 816 P2d 593 (1991) (reaffirming Oregon’s adherence to the physical impact rule and noting exceptions to it). | 2 | 2 |
Rustvold v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2003See Rustvold v. Taylor, 171 Or App 128, 137 , 14 P3d 675 (2000); Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 148 Or App 607, 612 , 941 P2d 602 (1997), affd on other grounds 327 Or 9 , 956 P2d 960 (1998). 2003See Rustvold v. Taylor, 171 Or App 128, 137 , 14 P3d 675 (2000); Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 148 Or App 607, 612 , 941 P2d 602 (1997), affd on other grounds 327 Or 9 , 956 P2d 960 (1998). | 2 | 2 |
Curtis v. MRI IMAGING SERVICES IIgreen2 sentences2015As pertinent here, a plaintiff may recover for purely psychic injury “where the defendant’s conduct infringed on some legally protected interest apart from causing the claimed distress ***.” Hammond, 312 Or at 23 (emphasis added); see also Phillips v. Lincoln County School District, 161 Or App 429, 432-33 , 984 P2d 947 (1999) (“[T]he term ‘legally protected interest’ refers to an independent basis of liability separate from the general duty to avoid foreseeable risk of harm.”); Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 148 Or App 607, 612-18 , 941 P2d 602 (1997), aff’d on other grounds, 327 Or 9 , 95 2015As pertinent here, a plaintiff may recover for purely psychic injury “where the defendant’s conduct infringed on some legally protected interest apart from causing the claimed distress ***.” Hammond, 312 Or at 23 (emphasis added); see also Phillips v. Lincoln County School District, 161 Or App 429, 432-33 , 984 P2d 947 (1999) (“[T]he term ‘legally protected interest’ refers to an independent basis of liability separate from the general duty to avoid foreseeable risk of harm.”); Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 148 Or App 607, 612-18 , 941 P2d 602 (1997), aff’d on other grounds, 327 Or 9 , 95 | 1 | 3 |
Bader v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2018See Dobbs, 2 Law of Remedies § 8.2 at 414 (discussing limits and collecting cases); see, e.g. , Bader v. Johnson , 732 N.E.2d 1212 , 1222 (Ind. 2000) (allowing mother to recover emotional distress damages, but not father, because mother satisfied the physical-impact rule); cf. Philibert , 360 Or. at 708 -11 , 385 P.3d 1038 (discussing limits). 2018See Dobbs, 2 Law of Remedies § 8.2 at 414 (discussing limits and collecting cases); see, e.g. , Bader v. Johnson , 732 N.E.2d 1212 , 1222 (Ind. 2000) (allowing mother to recover emotional distress damages, but not father, because mother satisfied the physical-impact rule); cf. Philibert , 360 Or. at 708 -11 , 385 P.3d 1038 (discussing limits). | 1 | 1 |
Chouinard v. Health Venturesgreen2 sentences2015“At a minimum, the physical impact rule requires an act or omission that results in some perceptible physical effect on a plaintiff.” Chouinard v. Health Ventures, 179 Or App 507, 515 , 39 P3d 951 (2002). “[T]he fact that a defendant’s negligence poses a threat of future physical harm is not sufficient, standing alone, to constitute an actionable injury.” Lowe v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 344 Or 403, 410 , 183 P3d 181 (2008). 2015“At a minimum, the physical impact rule requires an act or omission that results in some perceptible physical effect on a plaintiff.” Chouinard v. Health Ventures, 179 Or App 507, 515 , 39 P3d 951 (2002). “[T]he fact that a defendant’s negligence poses a threat of future physical harm is not sufficient, standing alone, to constitute an actionable injury.” Lowe v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 344 Or 403, 410 , 183 P3d 181 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Simons v. Beardgreen2 sentences2015See Simons v. Beard, 188 Or App 370, 377 , 72 P3d 96 (2003) (holding that the plaintiff had satisfied the physical impact rule because her allegations permitted the factfinder, on proof of the allegations in the operative complaint, to find that, but for the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff “would not have experienced the physical trauma of her unnecessarily protracted and ultimately futile labor”). 2015See Simons v. Beard, 188 Or App 370, 377 , 72 P3d 96 (2003) (holding that the plaintiff had satisfied the physical impact rule because her allegations permitted the factfinder, on proof of the allegations in the operative complaint, to find that, but for the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff “would not have experienced the physical trauma of her unnecessarily protracted and ultimately futile labor”). | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Lincoln County School Districtgreen2 sentences2015As pertinent here, a plaintiff may recover for purely psychic injury “where the defendant’s conduct infringed on some legally protected interest apart from causing the claimed distress ***.” Hammond, 312 Or at 23 (emphasis added); see also Phillips v. Lincoln County School District, 161 Or App 429, 432-33 , 984 P2d 947 (1999) (“[T]he term ‘legally protected interest’ refers to an independent basis of liability separate from the general duty to avoid foreseeable risk of harm.”); Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 148 Or App 607, 612-18 , 941 P2d 602 (1997), aff’d on other grounds, 327 Or 9 , 95 2015As pertinent here, a plaintiff may recover for purely psychic injury “where the defendant’s conduct infringed on some legally protected interest apart from causing the claimed distress ***.” Hammond, 312 Or at 23 (emphasis added); see also Phillips v. Lincoln County School District, 161 Or App 429, 432-33 , 984 P2d 947 (1999) (“[T]he term ‘legally protected interest’ refers to an independent basis of liability separate from the general duty to avoid foreseeable risk of harm.”); Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 148 Or App 607, 612-18 , 941 P2d 602 (1997), aff’d on other grounds, 327 Or 9 , 95 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Northgreen1 sentence2002See Rustvold v. Taylor, 111 Or App 128, 137, 14 P3d 675 (2000); Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 148 Or App 607, 612 , 941 P2d 602 (1997), aff'd on other grounds 327 Or 9 , 956 P2d 960 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Curtis v. MRI IMAGING SERVICES II
green
2 sentences2015As pertinent here, a plaintiff may recover for purely psychic injury “where the defendant’s conduct infringed on some legally protected interest apart from causing the claimed distress ***.” Hammond, 312 Or at 23 (emphasis added); see also Phillips v. Lincoln County School District, 161 Or App 429, 432-33 , 984 P2d 947 (1999) (“[T]he term ‘legally protected interest’ refers to an independent basis of liability separate from the general duty to avoid foreseeable risk of harm.”); Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 148 Or App 607, 612-18 , 941 P2d 602 (1997), aff’d on other grounds, 327 Or 9 , 95 2015As pertinent here, a plaintiff may recover for purely psychic injury “where the defendant’s conduct infringed on some legally protected interest apart from causing the claimed distress ***.” Hammond, 312 Or at 23 (emphasis added); see also Phillips v. Lincoln County School District, 161 Or App 429, 432-33 , 984 P2d 947 (1999) (“[T]he term ‘legally protected interest’ refers to an independent basis of liability separate from the general duty to avoid foreseeable risk of harm.”); Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 148 Or App 607, 612-18 , 941 P2d 602 (1997), aff’d on other grounds, 327 Or 9 , 95 | 3 | 2002–2015 |
Philibert v. Kluser
green
2 sentences2018See Dobbs, 2 Law of Remedies § 8.2 at 414 (discussing limits and collecting cases); see, e.g. , Bader v. Johnson , 732 N.E.2d 1212 , 1222 (Ind. 2000) (allowing mother to recover emotional distress damages, but not father, because mother satisfied the physical-impact rule); cf. Philibert , 360 Or. at 708 -11 , 385 P.3d 1038 (discussing limits). 2018See Dobbs, 2 Law of Remedies § 8.2 at 414 (discussing limits and collecting cases); see, e.g. , Bader v. Johnson , 732 N.E.2d 1212 , 1222 (Ind. 2000) (allowing mother to recover emotional distress damages, but not father, because mother satisfied the physical-impact rule); cf. Philibert , 360 Or. at 708 -11 , 385 P.3d 1038 (discussing limits). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Lowe v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015“At a minimum, the physical impact rule requires an act or omission that results in some perceptible physical effect on a plaintiff.” Chouinard v. Health Ventures, 179 Or App 507, 515 , 39 P3d 951 (2002). “[T]he fact that a defendant’s negligence poses a threat of future physical harm is not sufficient, standing alone, to constitute an actionable injury.” Lowe v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 344 Or 403, 410 , 183 P3d 181 (2008). 2015“At a minimum, the physical impact rule requires an act or omission that results in some perceptible physical effect on a plaintiff.” Chouinard v. Health Ventures, 179 Or App 507, 515 , 39 P3d 951 (2002). “[T]he fact that a defendant’s negligence poses a threat of future physical harm is not sufficient, standing alone, to constitute an actionable injury.” Lowe v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 344 Or 403, 410 , 183 P3d 181 (2008). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Metro-North Commuter Railroad v. Buckley
green
2 sentences2006Co. v. Buckley, 521 US 424, 433 , 117 S Ct 2113, 2119 , 138 L Ed 2d 560 (1997) (explaining that common-law courts employ rules such as the physical impact rule in order to separate valid, important claims from those that are invalid and to avoid the threat of “unlimited and unpredictable liability”). 2006Co. v. Buckley, 521 US 424, 433 , 117 S Ct 2113, 2119 , 138 L Ed 2d 560 (1997) (explaining that common-law courts employ rules such as the physical impact rule in order to separate valid, important claims from those that are invalid and to avoid the threat of “unlimited and unpredictable liability”). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.