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.
23 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1887–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Marc Nelson Oil Products, Inc. v. Grim Logging Co.green2 sentences2024ORAP 5.45(3) (“Each assignment of error must identify precisely the legal, procedural, factual or other ruling that is being challenged.”); see, e.g., Marc Nelson Oil Products, Inc. v. Grim Logging Co., 199 Or App 73 , 75 n 1, 110 P3d 120 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 200 Or App 239 , 115 P3d 935 (2005) (“Assignments of error * * * are to be directed against rulings by the trial court, not against components of the trial court’s reasoning or analysis that underlie that ruling.”). *4 I. 2024ORAP 5.45(3) (“Each assignment of error must identify precisely the legal, procedural, factual or other ruling that is being challenged.”); see, e.g., Marc Nelson Oil Products, Inc. v. Grim Logging Co., 199 Or App 73 , 75 n 1, 110 P3d 120 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 200 Or App 239 , 115 P3d 935 (2005) (“Assignments of error * * * are to be directed against rulings by the trial court, not against components of the trial court’s reasoning or analysis that underlie that ruling.”). *4 I. | 8 | 9 |
Marc Nelson Oil Products, Inc. v. Grim Logging Co.green2 sentences2024ORAP 5.45(3) (“Each assignment of error must identify precisely the legal, procedural, factual or other ruling that is being challenged.”); see, e.g., Marc Nelson Oil Products, Inc. v. Grim Logging Co., 199 Or App 73 , 75 n 1, 110 P3d 120 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 200 Or App 239 , 115 P3d 935 (2005) (“Assignments of error * * * are to be directed against rulings by the trial court, not against components of the trial court’s reasoning or analysis that underlie that ruling.”). *4 I. 2024ORAP 5.45(3) (“Each assignment of error must identify precisely the legal, procedural, factual or other ruling that is being challenged.”); see, e.g., Marc Nelson Oil Products, Inc. v. Grim Logging Co., 199 Or App 73 , 75 n 1, 110 P3d 120 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 200 Or App 239 , 115 P3d 935 (2005) (“Assignments of error * * * are to be directed against rulings by the trial court, not against components of the trial court’s reasoning or analysis that underlie that ruling.”). *4 I. | 8 | 9 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., State v. Walker, 356 Or 4, 24 , 333 P3d 316 (2014) (post-enactment cases from other jurisdictions ‘still may be consulted for their persuasive value’). 2016See, e.g., State v. Walker, 356 Or 4, 24 , 333 P3d 316 (2014) (post-enactment cases from other jurisdictions ‘still may be consulted for their persuasive value’). | 2 | 2 |
Portland Fire Fighters' Ass'n, Local 43 v. City of Portlandgreen2 sentences2021See Yogman, 325 Or at 361 ; see generally, Portland Fire Fighters’ Assn. v. City of Portland, 181 Or App 85, 91 , 45 P3d 162 , rev den, 334 Or 491 (2002) (setting forth Supreme Court’s contract-interpretation methodology). 2021See Yogman, 325 Or at 361 ; see generally, Portland Fire Fighters’ Assn. v. City of Portland, 181 Or App 85, 91 , 45 P3d 162 , rev den, 334 Or 491 (2002) (setting forth Supreme Court’s contract-interpretation methodology). | 1 | 1 |
Yogman v. Parrottgreen1 sentence2021See Yogman, 325 Or at 361 ; see generally, Portland Fire Fighters’ Assn. v. City of Portland, 181 Or App 85, 91 , 45 P3d 162 , rev den, 334 Or 491 (2002) (setting forth Supreme Court’s contract-interpretation methodology). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Bend Metropolitan Park & Recreation Districtgreen2 sentences2015See Smith v. Bend Metropolitan Park and Recreation, 247 Or App 187 , 192 n 2, 268 P3d 789 (2011) (considering “improper assignments of error” where “it is clear from the briefs, including the described standards of review and argument, that plaintiff intends to assign error to the trial court’s rulings on summary judgment,” and treating “the assignments as having challenged those rulings”); Hoffman v. Deschutes County, 237 Or App 531 , 539 n 5, 240 P3d 79 , rev den, 349 Or 479 (2010) (disregarding imprecision in assignment of error where the relevant issues were adequately framed for review). 2015See Smith v. Bend Metropolitan Park and Recreation, 247 Or App 187 , 192 n 2, 268 P3d 789 (2011) (considering “improper assignments of error” where “it is clear from the briefs, including the described standards of review and argument, that plaintiff intends to assign error to the trial court’s rulings on summary judgment,” and treating “the assignments as having challenged those rulings”); Hoffman v. Deschutes County, 237 Or App 531 , 539 n 5, 240 P3d 79 , rev den, 349 Or 479 (2010) (disregarding imprecision in assignment of error where the relevant issues were adequately framed for review). | 1 | 1 |
Eagles Five, LLC v. Lawtongreen2 sentences2014See Marc Nelson Oil Products, Inc. v. Grim Logging Co., 199 Or App 73 , 75 n 1, 110 P3d 120 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 200 Or App 239 , 115 P3d 935 (2005) (“Assignments of error *** are to be directed against rulings by the trial court, not against components of the trial court’s reasoning or analysis that underlie that ruling.”); accord Eagles Five, LLC v. Lawton, 250 Or App 413 , 423 n 5, 280 P3d 1017 (2012). 2014See Marc Nelson Oil Products, Inc. v. Grim Logging Co., 199 Or App 73 , 75 n 1, 110 P3d 120 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 200 Or App 239 , 115 P3d 935 (2005) (“Assignments of error *** are to be directed against rulings by the trial court, not against components of the trial court’s reasoning or analysis that underlie that ruling.”); accord Eagles Five, LLC v. Lawton, 250 Or App 413 , 423 n 5, 280 P3d 1017 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vondehngreen2 sentences2012This court explained that the extent to which police officers convey a mixed message and the extent to which later warnings remedy any mixed message require “consideration of] all relevant circumstances, including those facts to which the plurality in Seibert pointed.” Id. at 482. 12 We explained in Vondehn that we “f[ou]nd the reasoning in [Seibert and Elstad] helpful because they focus, as we must, on the source and purpose for the Miranda requirement and the exclusion of evidence obtained when Miranda warnings are not given as required.” Vondehn, 348 Or at 480 ; see also id. at 481 (££[W]e 2012This court explained that the extent to which police officers convey a mixed message and the extent to which later warnings remedy any mixed message require “consideration of] all relevant circumstances, including those facts to which the plurality in Seibert pointed.” Id. at 482. 12 We explained in Vondehn that we “f[ou]nd the reasoning in [Seibert and Elstad] helpful because they focus, as we must, on the source and purpose for the Miranda requirement and the exclusion of evidence obtained when Miranda warnings are not given as required.” Vondehn, 348 Or at 480 ; see also id. at 481 (££[W]e | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Simonsen v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2019App. 460 , 465 n. 7, 102 P.3d 710 (2004), rev. den. , 338 Or. 681 , 115 P.3d 246 (2005) ("As we have endeavored to explain, assignments of error are to be directed against rulings by the tribunal and not against components of the tribunal's reasoning or analysis that underlie that ruling."). 2005See ORAP 5.45(3); Simonsen v. Ford Motor Co., 196 Or App 460 , 465-66 n 7, 102 P3d 710 (2004). | 2 | 2005–2019 |
Van Der Hout v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2025The van der Hout court also rejected the plaintiff’s effort to limit the principle to cases of loss of consciousness, *458 stating that the reasoning for the rule “applies just as strongly to a case of sudden illness which incapacitates the driver of an automobile as to a case of fainting or uncon- sciousness.” 251 Or at 438-39 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hoffman v. Deschutes County
neutral
2 sentences2015See Smith v. Bend Metropolitan Park and Recreation, 247 Or App 187 , 192 n 2, 268 P3d 789 (2011) (considering “improper assignments of error” where “it is clear from the briefs, including the described standards of review and argument, that plaintiff intends to assign error to the trial court’s rulings on summary judgment,” and treating “the assignments as having challenged those rulings”); Hoffman v. Deschutes County, 237 Or App 531 , 539 n 5, 240 P3d 79 , rev den, 349 Or 479 (2010) (disregarding imprecision in assignment of error where the relevant issues were adequately framed for review). 2015See Smith v. Bend Metropolitan Park and Recreation, 247 Or App 187 , 192 n 2, 268 P3d 789 (2011) (considering “improper assignments of error” where “it is clear from the briefs, including the described standards of review and argument, that plaintiff intends to assign error to the trial court’s rulings on summary judgment,” and treating “the assignments as having challenged those rulings”); Hoffman v. Deschutes County, 237 Or App 531 , 539 n 5, 240 P3d 79 , rev den, 349 Or 479 (2010) (disregarding imprecision in assignment of error where the relevant issues were adequately framed for review). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Hoffman v. Deschutes County
neutral
1 sentence2015See Smith v. Bend Metropolitan Park and Recreation, 247 Or App 187 , 192 n 2, 268 P3d 789 (2011) (considering “improper assignments of error” where “it is clear from the briefs, including the described standards of review and argument, that plaintiff intends to assign error to the trial court’s rulings on summary judgment,” and treating “the assignments as having challenged those rulings”); Hoffman v. Deschutes County, 237 Or App 531 , 539 n 5, 240 P3d 79 , rev den, 349 Or 479 (2010) (disregarding imprecision in assignment of error where the relevant issues were adequately framed for review). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Miller Ex Rel. Miller v. Tabor West Investment Co., LLC
green
1 sentence2014In Miller, we referred to the 2001 version of ORS 124.100, which was the version in effect at the time of the plaintiff’s injury in that case. 223 Or App at 716 n 2. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Sprague v. United States Bakery
green
2 sentences2008We explained, "The statutory definition of a `consequential condition' is not satisfied, as the board reasoned, simply because the gastric bypass surgery was performed, in part, to treat claimant's obesity and, in part, to treat his knee condition." 199 Or.App. at 440 , 112 P.3d 362 . 2008We explained, “The statutory definition of a ‘consequential condition’ is not satisfied, as the board reasoned, simply because the gastric bypass surgery was performed, in part, to treat claimant’s obesity and, in part, to treat his knee condition.” 199 Or App at 440 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Home Plate, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Commission
green
2 sentences1985To allow the agency to diffuse its reasoning process throughout several orders would defeat the purpose of the substantial reasoning rule, which requires “the administrative agency to demonstrate that it has applied criteria prescribed by statute and by its own regulations and has not acted arbitrarily or on an ad hoc basis * * Home Plate, Inc. v. OLCC, supra, 20 Or App at 190 . 1985To allow the agency to diffuse its reasoning process throughout several orders would defeat the purpose of the substantial reasoning rule, which requires “the administrative agency to demonstrate that it has applied criteria prescribed by statute and by its own regulations and has not acted arbitrarily or on an ad hoc basis * * Home Plate, Inc. v. OLCC, supra, 20 Or App at 190 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
O'Brien v. Dunigan
green
2 sentences1974O’Brien v. Dunigan, 187 Or 227 , 210 P2d 567 (1949). 1974O’Brien v. Dunigan, 187 Or 227 , 210 P2d 567 (1949). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
County of Los Angeles v. Faus
green
1 sentence1962It is not competent for either party to put in evidence the amount paid by a condemning party to the owners of the neighboring lands taken at the same time and as part of the same proceedings, however similar they may be to that in controversy, whether the payment was made as the result of a voluntary settlement, an award or verdict of a jury. * * *” *511 This exception has long 'been the rule in Oregon. ② In her brief defendant concedes that the authorities which she cites from other jurisdictions are not in accord with Coos Bay Logging Co., supra. Nor does it accord with statements found in | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Brunswick v. Standard Accident Insurance
green
2 sentences1944Co., 278 Mo. 154 , 173 , 213 S.W. 45 , 7 A.L.R. 1213 ; Von Crome v. Travelers Ins. 1944Co., 278 Mo. 154 , 173 , 213 S.W. 45 , 7 A.L.R. 1213 ; Von Crome v. Travelers Ins. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix Insurance
green
2 sentences1913Co., 129 U. S. 397 ( 32 L. 1913Co., 129 U. S. 397 ( 32 L. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Boykin v. Edwards
neutral
1 sentence1887(Knott v. Jarboe, 1 Met. [Ky.] 506 ; Boykin v. Edwards, 21 Ala. 261 .) Apply this reasoning to the principle involved here, and it is fatal to the notice of appeal served by the defendant. | 1 | 1887–1887 |
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.