30 Oregon opinions name it 3 courts 1981–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Friends of Yamhill County, Inc. v. Board of Commissionersgreen2 sentences2016In our decision, we relied upon the analysis of the Holmes factors that was articulated in Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 237 Or App 149 , 238 P3d 1016 (2010), aff'd, 351 Or 219 , 264 P3d 1265 (2011). 2016In our decision, we relied upon the analysis of the Holmes factors that was articulated in Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 237 Or App 149 , 238 P3d 1016 (2010), aff'd, 351 Or 219 , 264 P3d 1265 (2011). | 4 | 10 |
Clackamas County v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2019All of the Holmes factors address equitable considerations, and the two "good faith" factors are particularly focused on the landowner's belief that the existing law will continue in effect. 265 Or. at 198 , 508 P.2d 190 (two factors to be considered in the vested rights analysis are "the good faith of the landowner" and "whether or not [the landowner] had *559 notice of any proposed zoning or amendatory zoning before starting his improvements"); see also Friends II , 351 Or. at 241 , 264 P.3d 1265 ("[O]ne of the sources that this court relied on in Holmes explained that the law would not help 2019All of the Holmes factors address equitable considerations, and the two "good faith" factors are particularly focused on the landowner's belief that the existing law will continue in effect. 265 Or. at 198 , 508 P.2d 190 (two factors to be considered in the vested rights analysis are "the good faith of the landowner" and "whether or not [the landowner] had *559 notice of any proposed zoning or amendatory zoning before starting his improvements"); see also Friends II , 351 Or. at 241 , 264 P.3d 1265 ("[O]ne of the sources that this court relied on in Holmes explained that the law would not help | 2 | 8 |
Friends of Yamhill County, Inc. v. Board of Commissionersgreen2 sentences2019All of the Holmes factors address equitable considerations, and the two "good faith" factors are particularly focused on the landowner's belief that the existing law will continue in effect. 265 Or. at 198 , 508 P.2d 190 (two factors to be considered in the vested rights analysis are "the good faith of the landowner" and "whether or not [the landowner] had *559 notice of any proposed zoning or amendatory zoning before starting his improvements"); see also Friends II , 351 Or. at 241 , 264 P.3d 1265 ("[O]ne of the sources that this court relied on in Holmes explained that the law would not help 2019All of the Holmes factors address equitable considerations, and the two "good faith" factors are particularly focused on the landowner's belief that the existing law will continue in effect. 265 Or. at 198 , 508 P.2d 190 (two factors to be considered in the vested rights analysis are "the good faith of the landowner" and "whether or not [the landowner] had *559 notice of any proposed zoning or amendatory zoning before starting his improvements"); see also Friends II , 351 Or. at 241 , 264 P.3d 1265 ("[O]ne of the sources that this court relied on in Holmes explained that the law would not help | 2 | 5 |
State v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2008There is little question that Winters, Hitchcock, and *85 VanTienen were stopped under the first Holmes test inasmuch as the law enforcement officers “intentionally and significantly restrict[ed], interfered] with, or otherwise depriv[ed them] of [their] liberty or freedom of movement.” Id. at 409-10. 2007The court stated “Applying the Holmes test [State v. Holmes, 311 Or 400, 409-10 , 813 P2d 28 (1991)] to the facts of this case, I find that no reasonable person in [defendant’s] case would have felt her liberties were being restricted. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Lantzschgreen2 sentences2010Lantzsch, 229 Or.App. at 516-17 , 214 P.3d 22 . 2010Lantzsch, 229 Or.App. at 516-17 , 214 P.3d 22 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Hallgreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., State v. Hall, 339 Or 7, 16 , 115 P3d 908 (2005) (reiterating that test set out in Holmes and Toevs “is substantially the same”). 2009See, e.g., State v. Hall, 339 Or 7, 16 , 115 P3d 908 (2005) (reiterating that test set out in Holmes and Toevs “is substantially the same”). | 1 | 2 |
Curry v. Clackamas Countygreen2 sentences2011See Curry v. Clackamas County, 240 Or App 531, 536 , 248 P3d 1 , rev den, 350 Or 573 (2011) (dismissal of declaratory judgment claim held improper and claim remanded for issuance of judgment declaring rights in accordance with this court’s view of the merits of the controversy). 2011See Curry v. Clackamas County, 240 Or App 531, 536 , 248 P3d 1 , rev den, 350 Or 573 (2011) (dismissal of declaratory judgment claim held improper and claim remanded for issuance of judgment declaring rights in accordance with this court’s view of the merits of the controversy). | 1 | 1 |
Curry v. Clackamas Countygreen2 sentences2011See Curry v. Clackamas County, 240 Or App 531, 536 , 248 P3d 1 , rev den, 350 Or 573 (2011) (dismissal of declaratory judgment claim held improper and claim remanded for issuance of judgment declaring rights in accordance with this court’s view of the merits of the controversy). 2011See Curry v. Clackamas County, 240 Or App 531, 536 , 248 P3d 1 , rev den, 350 Or 573 (2011) (dismissal of declaratory judgment claim held improper and claim remanded for issuance of judgment declaring rights in accordance with this court’s view of the merits of the controversy). | 1 | 1 |
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Stallcupgreen2 sentences2010See Dept. of Transportation v. Stallcup, 195 Or App 239, 254-55 , 97 P3d 1229 (2004), rev’d on other grounds, 341 Or 93 , 138 P3d 9 (2006). 2010See Dept. of Transportation v. Stallcup, 195 Or App 239, 254-55 , 97 P3d 1229 (2004), rev’d on other grounds, 341 Or 93 , 138 P3d 9 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Dept. of Transportation v. Stallcupgreen2 sentences2010See Dept. of Transportation v. Stallcup, 195 Or App 239, 254-55 , 97 P3d 1229 (2004), rev’d on other grounds, 341 Or 93 , 138 P3d 9 (2006). 2010See Dept. of Transportation v. Stallcup, 195 Or App 239, 254-55 , 97 P3d 1229 (2004), rev’d on other grounds, 341 Or 93 , 138 P3d 9 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Eklund v. Clackamas Countygreen2 sentences2010The interrelatedness of the Holmes factors was confirmed in Eklund v. Clackamas County, 36 Or App 73 , 583 P2d 567 (1978), overruled on other grounds by Forman v. Clatsop County, 63 Or App 617 , 665 P2d 365 (1983). 2010The interrelatedness of the Holmes factors was confirmed in Eklund v. Clackamas County, 36 Or App 73 , 583 P2d 567 (1978), overruled on other grounds by Forman v. Clatsop County, 63 Or App 617 , 665 P2d 365 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Zamora-Martinezgreen1 sentence2009Ashbaugh, 225 Or App at 28 ; Zamora-Martinez, 229 Or App at 404 (remanding for trial court finding on the defendant’s subjective belief under Holmes test). 4 The next question, then, is whether the deputies had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Starrgreen2 sentences2009See State v. Lantzsch, 229 Or.App. 505, 516 , 214 P.3d 22 (2009). [2] As defendant notes, in State v. Starr, 91 Or.App. 267 , 754 P.2d 618 (1988), we held that the defendant's identity was obtained as a result of an unlawful stop in circumstances similar to those here. 2009See State v. Lantzsch, 229 Or.App. 505, 516 , 214 P.3d 22 (2009). [2] As defendant notes, in State v. Starr, 91 Or.App. 267 , 754 P.2d 618 (1988), we held that the defendant's identity was obtained as a result of an unlawful stop in circumstances similar to those here. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mortongreen2 sentences2009See State v. Morton, 326 Or. 466, 469-70 , 953 P.2d 374 (1998) (holding that, where a defendant had been in possession of a container only moments before it came into the possession of the police, she was entitled to challenge the seizure of the container by the police under Article I, section 9); see also State v. Finlay, 170 Or.App. 359, 365 , 12 P.3d 999 (2000) (holding that the defendant could assert a privacy interest in credit cards on the center console of his vehicle even though he denied a proprietary interest in them). [3] For purposes of this part of the analysis, I accept the "coul 2009See State v. Morton, 326 Or. 466, 469-70 , 953 P.2d 374 (1998) (holding that, where a defendant had been in possession of a container only moments before it came into the possession of the police, she was entitled to challenge the seizure of the container by the police under Article I, section 9); see also State v. Finlay, 170 Or.App. 359, 365 , 12 P.3d 999 (2000) (holding that the defendant could assert a privacy interest in credit cards on the center console of his vehicle even though he denied a proprietary interest in them). [3] For purposes of this part of the analysis, I accept the "coul | 1 | 1 |
State v. Finlaygreen2 sentences2009See State v. Morton, 326 Or. 466, 469-70 , 953 P.2d 374 (1998) (holding that, where a defendant had been in possession of a container only moments before it came into the possession of the police, she was entitled to challenge the seizure of the container by the police under Article I, section 9); see also State v. Finlay, 170 Or.App. 359, 365 , 12 P.3d 999 (2000) (holding that the defendant could assert a privacy interest in credit cards on the center console of his vehicle even though he denied a proprietary interest in them). [3] For purposes of this part of the analysis, I accept the "coul 2009See State v. Morton, 326 Or. 466, 469-70 , 953 P.2d 374 (1998) (holding that, where a defendant had been in possession of a container only moments before it came into the possession of the police, she was entitled to challenge the seizure of the container by the police under Article I, section 9); see also State v. Finlay, 170 Or.App. 359, 365 , 12 P.3d 999 (2000) (holding that the defendant could assert a privacy interest in credit cards on the center console of his vehicle even though he denied a proprietary interest in them). [3] For purposes of this part of the analysis, I accept the "coul | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ashbaugh
green
2 sentences2010The sole reason that the majority gives for abandoning that Holmes analysis is that "this court has seemed disinclined" to use it. 349 Or. at 314 , 244 P.3d at 369 . 2010The sole reason that the majority gives for abandoning that Holmes analysis is that "this court has seemed disinclined" to use it. 349 Or. at 314 , 244 P.3d at 369 . | 2 | 2010–2013 |
State v. Rodgers
green
2 sentences2010As our analysis will demonstrate, we need not address that theory in this case. [11] In Rodgers/Kirkeby , we stated the definition in slightly different words: "A person is `seized' under Article I, section 9, when either (1) a police officer intentionally and significantly interferes with the person's freedom of movement; or (2) the person believes, in an objectively reasonable manner, that his or her liberty of movement has been so restricted." 347 Or. at 621-22 , 227 P.3d 695 . [12] We discuss below the cases that the state points to as demonstrating that shift. [13] In fact, defendant cont 2010As our analysis will demonstrate, we need not address that theory in this case. [11] In Rodgers/Kirkeby , we stated the definition in slightly different words: "A person is `seized' under Article I, section 9, when either (1) a police officer intentionally and significantly interferes with the person's freedom of movement; or (2) the person believes, in an objectively reasonable manner, that his or her liberty of movement has been so restricted." 347 Or. at 621-22 , 227 P.3d 695 . [12] We discuss below the cases that the state points to as demonstrating that shift. [13] In fact, defendant cont | 2 | 2010–2011 |
Union Oil Co. v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences2010Petitioner makes no such demonstration.” Id. *165 The above cases establish that all of the Holmes factors are material to the determination of a vested right and that they are interrelated. 2010Petitioner makes no such demonstration.” Id. *165 The above cases establish that all of the Holmes factors are material to the determination of a vested right and that they are interrelated. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Ashbaugh
green
2 sentences2009Ashbaugh, 225 Or App at 28 ; Zamora-Martinez, 229 Or App at 404 (remanding for trial court finding on the defendant’s subjective belief under Holmes test). 4 The next question, then, is whether the deputies had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant. 2009J., concurring), the test "is inherently difficult to apply in a predictable and consistent way." The Ashbaugh concurrence isolated the core difficulty, noting that "application of the Holmes test * * * places a reviewing court in the position of channeling what a reasonable person * * * could (or would) believe." Id. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Levias
green
2 sentences2011Under that test, the lodestar for determining whether an officer has seized a defendant under Article I, section 9, is whether the officer restricted the defendant’s liberty or freedom of movement by a show of authority, State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610, 621-22 , 227 P3d 695 (2010), which may be established through, among other circumstances, the content of the officer’s questions to the defendant or the officer’s manner or actions during the encounter, State v. Levias, 242 Or App 264, 266-67 , 255 P3d 611 (2011). 2011Under that test, the lodestar for determining whether an officer has seized a defendant under Article I, section 9, is whether the officer restricted the defendant’s liberty or freedom of movement by a show of authority, State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610, 621-22 , 227 P3d 695 (2010), which may be established through, among other circumstances, the content of the officer’s questions to the defendant or the officer’s manner or actions during the encounter, State v. Levias, 242 Or App 264, 266-67 , 255 P3d 611 (2011). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Forman v. Clatsop County
neutral
2 sentences2010The interrelatedness of the Holmes factors was confirmed in Eklund v. Clackamas County, 36 Or App 73 , 583 P2d 567 (1978), overruled on other grounds by Forman v. Clatsop County, 63 Or App 617 , 665 P2d 365 (1983). 2010The interrelatedness of the Holmes factors was confirmed in Eklund v. Clackamas County, 36 Or App 73 , 583 P2d 567 (1978), overruled on other grounds by Forman v. Clatsop County, 63 Or App 617 , 665 P2d 365 (1983). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Corey v. Department of Land Conservation & Development
green
2 sentences2010That commonness suggests that distinction among claimants with vested rights and those without those rights must lie in differences about the individual degree of progress made to *178 complete the development, in the words of the Supreme Court, the extent to which a project is “partially finished.” Corey, 344 Or at 466 . 2010That commonness suggests that distinction among claimants with vested rights and those without those rights must lie in differences about the individual degree of progress made to *178 complete the development, in the words of the Supreme Court, the extent to which a project is “partially finished.” Corey, 344 Or at 466 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Ehret
green
2 sentences2009“Reasonable suspicion requires a subjective belief by the police officer that the person has committed a crime or is about to commit one, and that belief must be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Hitchcock /Winters, 224 Or App 77, 86 , 197 P3d 33 (2008) (citing ORS 131.605(5) and State v. Ehret, 184 Or App 1, 7 , 55 P3d 512 (2002)). 2009“Reasonable suspicion requires a subjective belief by the police officer that the person has committed a crime or is about to commit one, and that belief must be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Hitchcock /Winters, 224 Or App 77, 86 , 197 P3d 33 (2008) (citing ORS 131.605(5) and State v. Ehret, 184 Or App 1, 7 , 55 P3d 512 (2002)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Hitchcock
green
2 sentences2009“Reasonable suspicion requires a subjective belief by the police officer that the person has committed a crime or is about to commit one, and that belief must be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Hitchcock /Winters, 224 Or App 77, 86 , 197 P3d 33 (2008) (citing ORS 131.605(5) and State v. Ehret, 184 Or App 1, 7 , 55 P3d 512 (2002)). 2009“Reasonable suspicion requires a subjective belief by the police officer that the person has committed a crime or is about to commit one, and that belief must be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Hitchcock /Winters, 224 Or App 77, 86 , 197 P3d 33 (2008) (citing ORS 131.605(5) and State v. Ehret, 184 Or App 1, 7 , 55 P3d 512 (2002)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co.
green
2 sentences2008This case turns entirely on issues of Oregon law. 11 That reading of Holmes is supported by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 US _ , 128 S Ct 2131 , 170 L Ed 2d 1012 (2008). 2008This case turns entirely on issues of Oregon law. 11 That reading of Holmes is supported by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 US _ , 128 S Ct 2131 , 170 L Ed 2d 1012 (2008). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Gerrish
green
2 sentences2007Unlike the cases cited above[, Holmes and State v. Gerrish, 311 Or 506 , 815 P2d 1244 (1991)], here it was [defendant] who invited the police to the area by calling to report a dispute. 2007Unlike the cases cited above[, Holmes and State v. Gerrish, 311 Or 506 , 815 P2d 1244 (1991)], here it was [defendant] who invited the police to the area by calling to report a dispute. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Juarez-Godinez
green
2 sentences1998We note at the outset that the second prong has both a subjective and an objective component, for “police conduct with respect to a person is tested according to what defendant did believe and what an objectively reasonable person would believe under the circumstances * * State v. Juarez-Godinez, 326 Or 1, 7 , 942 P2d 772 (1997) (emphasis in original). 1998We note at the outset that the second prong has both a subjective and an objective component, for “police conduct with respect to a person is tested according to what defendant did believe and what an objectively reasonable person would believe under the circumstances * * State v. Juarez-Godinez, 326 Or 1, 7 , 942 P2d 772 (1997) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Hughes v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
green
2 sentences1981Salitan et al v. Dashney et al., supra, 219 Or at 559 ; Hughes v. Aetna Casualty Co., 234 Or 426, 450 , 383 P2d 55 (1963). 5 *556 PLAINTIFF HOLMES’ CLAIM 6 At the close of plaintiffs case in chief the defendant moved to dismiss the Holmes claim on the ground (among others) it was barred by the statute of limitations. 1981Salitan et al v. Dashney et al., supra, 219 Or at 559 ; Hughes v. Aetna Casualty Co., 234 Or 426, 450 , 383 P2d 55 (1963). 5 *556 PLAINTIFF HOLMES’ CLAIM 6 At the close of plaintiffs case in chief the defendant moved to dismiss the Holmes claim on the ground (among others) it was barred by the statute of limitations. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Salitan v. Dashney
green
2 sentences1981Salitan et al v. Dashney et al., supra, 219 Or at 559 ; Hughes v. Aetna Casualty Co., 234 Or 426, 450 , 383 P2d 55 (1963). 5 *556 PLAINTIFF HOLMES’ CLAIM 6 At the close of plaintiffs case in chief the defendant moved to dismiss the Holmes claim on the ground (among others) it was barred by the statute of limitations. 1981Salitan et al v. Dashney et al., supra, 219 Or at 559 ; Hughes v. Aetna Casualty Co., 234 Or 426, 450 , 383 P2d 55 (1963). 5 *556 PLAINTIFF HOLMES’ CLAIM 6 At the close of plaintiffs case in chief the defendant moved to dismiss the Holmes claim on the ground (among others) it was barred by the statute of limitations. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.