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.
29 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2026 12 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2026In Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 US 319, 334-35 , 96 S Ct 893 , 47 L Ed 2d 18 (1976), the Supreme Court of the United States explained that, when a court is charged with decid- ing if due process was satisfied in a particular instance, the court generally must evaluate three factors: (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action;” (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of addi- tional or substitute procedural safeguards;” and (3) “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and t 2026In Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 US 319, 334-35 , 96 S Ct 893 , 47 L Ed 2d 18 (1976), the Supreme Court of the United States explained that, when a court is charged with decid- ing if due process was satisfied in a particular instance, the court generally must evaluate three factors: (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action;” (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of addi- tional or substitute procedural safeguards;” and (3) “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and t | 1 | 29 |
Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.green2 sentences1990See Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, supra, 452 U.S. at 27 , 101 S.Ct. at 2159 . 1990See Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, supra, 452 U.S. at 27 , 101 S.Ct. at 2159 . | 1 | 1 |
Tupper v. FAIRVIEW HOSP. & TRAIN. CENTER, ETC.green2 sentences1983The form of the notice and an opportunity to be heard which is required varies from case to case, depending on the circumstances and interests involved. “* * * [Identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and 1983The form of the notice and an opportunity to be heard which is required varies from case to case, depending on the circumstances and interests involved. "* * * [I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: *1043 first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involv | 1 | 1 |
Hammer v. OREGON STATE PEN., CORR. DIVISIONgreen1 sentence1983The form of the notice and an opportunity to be heard which is required varies from case to case, depending on the circumstances and interests involved. "* * * [I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: *1043 first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involv | 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. A. M.
green
2 sentences2025In A. M., we noted that when deter- mining whether due process required an in-person commit- ment hearing, the court must consider the following three factors to decide what process is due: “ ‘First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the prob- able value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, includ- ing the function involved and the fiscal and administra- tive burdens that the additional or substitute proce 2025In A. M., we noted that when determining whether due process required an in-person commitment hearing, the court must consider the following three factors to decide what process is due: “ ‘First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the prob- able value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, includ- ing the function involved and the fiscal and administra- tive burdens that the additional or substitute procedura | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. C. M.
neutral
1 sentence2024Although the record permitted our review of the first and third factor, we con- cluded that the second factor turned on a factual issue, and the record contained “no evidence one way or the other on Nonprecedential Memo Op: 335 Or App 13 (2024) 15 [these] factual issues, much less a resolution of any compet- ing evidence.” Id. at 465-66. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. A. M.
green
1 sentence2024In A. M., we sought to determine whether due process required an in-person commitment hearing, noting that the court must consider the following three factors to decide what pro- cess is due: “ ‘First, the private interest that will be affected by the offi- cial action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the prob- able value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, includ- ing the function involved and the fiscal and administra- tive burdens that the additional or substitute p | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005Although they do not cite Mathews , petitioners do rely on Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 331 Or 362 , 15 P3d 548 (2000), which itself was based on Mathews , to support their arguments. 2005Although they do not cite Mathews , petitioners do rely on Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 331 Or 362 , 15 P3d 548 (2000), which itself was based on Mathews , to support their arguments. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Johansen
green
2 sentences1993My disagreement with the majority centers on its conclusion that the "several procedural mechanisms [in ORS 426.301 to ORS 426.307] that protect against the risk of erroneous [recommitment]," 125 Or.App. at 376 , 866 P.2d at 476 , are sufficient under the Due Process Clause. 1993My disagreement with the majority centers on its conclusion that the "several procedural mechanisms [in ORS 426.301 to ORS 426.307] that protect against the risk of erroneous [recommitment]," 125 Or.App. at 376 , 866 P.2d at 476 , are sufficient under the Due Process Clause. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
MacKey v. Montrym
green
2 sentences1986Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335 , 47 L Ed 2d 18, 96 , S Ct 893 (1976).” Mackey v. Montrym, 443 US 1, 10 , 99 S Ct 2612 , 61 LEd 2d 321 (1979). 1986Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335 , 47 L Ed 2d 18, 96 , S Ct 893 (1976).” Mackey v. Montrym, 443 US 1, 10 , 99 S Ct 2612 , 61 LEd 2d 321 (1979). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Dixon v. Love
green
2 sentences1978In Dixon the private interest was "the granted license to operate a motor vehicle.” 431 US at 113 , 97 S Ct at 1728 , 52 L Ed 2d at 180 . 1978In Dixon the private interest was "the granted license to operate a motor vehicle.” 431 US at 113 , 97 S Ct at 1728 , 52 L Ed 2d at 180 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.