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.
21 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2026 13 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 |
|---|---|---|
King v. SAIFgreen2 sentences2020See King v. SAIF, 300 Or App 267, 268 , 452 P3d 1039 (2019) (unchallenged findings of historical facts “establish the facts for purposes of judicial review”). 2020See King v. SAIF, 300 Or App 267, 268 , 452 P3d 1039 (2019) (unchallenged findings of historical facts “establish the facts for purposes of judicial review”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morrison v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
green
2 sentences2026We review the board’s order for legal error, Morrison v. Board of Parole, 277 Or App 861, 863 , 374 P3d 948 , rev den, 360 Or 465 (2016), and substantial evidence, ORS 144.335(1), (3); ORS 183.482(8), including substantial rea- son, Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 195 , 335 P3d 828 (2014). 2026We review the board’s order for legal error, Morrison v. Board of Parole, 277 Or App 861, 863 , 374 P3d 948 , rev den, 360 Or 465 (2016), and substantial evidence, ORS 144.335(1), (3); ORS 183.482(8), including substantial rea- son, Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 195 , 335 P3d 828 (2014). | 5 | 2026–2026 |
Jenkins v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
green
2 sentences2026We review the board’s order for legal error, Morrison v. Board of Parole, 277 Or App 861, 863 , 374 P3d 948 , rev den, 360 Or 465 (2016), and substantial evidence, ORS 144.335(1), (3); ORS 183.482(8), including substantial rea- son, Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 195 , 335 P3d 828 (2014). 2026We review the board’s order for legal error, Morrison v. Board of Parole, 277 Or App 861, 863 , 374 P3d 948 , rev den, 360 Or 465 (2016), and substantial evidence, ORS 144.335(1), (3); ORS 183.482(8), including substantial rea- son, Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 195 , 335 P3d 828 (2014). | 5 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Harrop
neutral
2 sentences2024“On review of an order on a suppression motion, we review the order for legal error and are bound by the trial court’s factual findings if there is constitutionally sufficient evidence in the record to support them.” State v. Harrop, 296 Or App 541, 543 , 439 P3d 548 , rev den, 365 Or 556 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2024“On review of an order on a suppression motion, we review the order for legal error and are bound by the trial court’s factual findings if there is constitutionally sufficient evidence in the record to support them.” State v. Harrop, 296 Or App 541, 543 , 439 P3d 548 , rev den, 365 Or 556 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Dept. of Human Services v. T. B.
green
2 sentences2024B., 326 Or App 192, 194 , 531 P3d 718 (2023) (noting that we review whether the juvenile court has authority to make a particular order for legal error). 2024B., 326 Or App 192, 194 , 531 P3d 718 (2023) (noting that we review whether the juvenile court has authority to make a particular order for legal error). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Grobovsky v. Board of Medical Examiners
green
2 sentences2026See Advocates for School Trust Lands v. State of Oregon, 346 300 NewSun Energy LLC v. PUC Or App 668, 685, ___ P3d ___ (2026) (stating general stan- dard of review for ORCP 21 motions); Grobovsky v. Board of Medical Examiners, 213 Or App 136, 142-46 , 159 P3d 1245 (2007) (evaluating issue of whether an order is a final order for legal error based on the procedural history and the order’s legal context). 2026See Advocates for School Trust Lands v. State of Oregon, 346 300 NewSun Energy LLC v. PUC Or App 668, 685, ___ P3d ___ (2026) (stating general stan- dard of review for ORCP 21 motions); Grobovsky v. Board of Medical Examiners, 213 Or App 136, 142-46 , 159 P3d 1245 (2007) (evaluating issue of whether an order is a final order for legal error based on the procedural history and the order’s legal context). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Delavega v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION
green
2 sentences2024Delavega v. Board of Parole, 222 Or App 161, 163 , 194 P3d 159 (2008). 2024Delavega v. Board of Parole, 222 Or App 161, 163 , 194 P3d 159 (2008). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Portland Fire Fighters' Assn. v. City of Portland
green
2 sentences2022“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” Portland Fire Fighters’ Ass’n. v. City of Portland, 321 Or App 569, 577 , 518 P3d 611 (2022). 2022“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” Portland Fire Fighters’ Ass’n. v. City of Portland, 321 Or App 569, 577 , 518 P3d 611 (2022). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Hamilton v. SAIF Corp.
neutral
2 sentences2022ORS 183.482(8)(a); Hamilton v. SAIF, 275 Or App 978, 980 , 365 P3d 1116 (2015). 2022ORS 183.482(8)(a); Hamilton v. SAIF, 275 Or App 978, 980 , 365 P3d 1116 (2015). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Carson
neutral
2 sentences2019On review of an order on a suppression motion, we review the order for legal error "and are bound by the trial court's factual findings if there is constitutionally sufficient evidence in the record to support them." State v. Carson , 287 Or. 2019App. 631 , 634, 404 P.3d 1017 (2017). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Wallace
neutral
1 sentence2018State v. Wallace , 258 Or. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Papworth v. Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development
green
1 sentence2018ORS 183.484(5) (setting out standards for judicial review in an other than contested case); Papworth v. DLCD , 255 Or. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Rash v. McKinstry Co.
green
2 sentences2017Liberty contends, as it did below, that claimant is not entitled to attorney fees and penalties because he waived his right to them under ORS 656.236(l)(a) and the terms of the CDA. 1 Reviewing the final order for legal error, Rash v. McKinstry Co., 331 Or 665, 667 , 20 P3d 197 (2001), we affirm. 2017Liberty contends, as it did below, that claimant is not entitled to attorney fees and penalties because he waived his right to them under ORS 656.236(l)(a) and the terms of the CDA. 1 Reviewing the final order for legal error, Rash v. McKinstry Co., 331 Or 665, 667 , 20 P3d 197 (2001), we affirm. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Ross v. Springfield School District No. 19
green
1 sentence2016ORS 183.482(8)(a); Topaz, 255 Or App at 144 ; Ross, 294 Or at 370 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Topaz v. Oregon Board of Examiners for Engineering & Land Surveying
green
1 sentence2016ORS 183.482(8)(a); Topaz, 255 Or App at 144 ; Ross, 294 Or at 370 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Arms v. SAIF Corp.
green
2 sentences2015Petitioner also argues that ODOT’s order is not supported by substantial reason, in that the order does not “explain which of the criteria for good cause it applied or how it reasoned from its factual contentions to the conclusion that those criteria were not met.” Given those arguments, we review the order for legal error and for substantial reason, that is, to “determine whether [ODOT] provided a rational explanation of how its factual findings lead to the legal conclusions on which the order is based.” Arms v. SAIF, 268 Or App 761, 767 , 343 P3d 659 (2015). 2015Petitioner also argues that ODOT’s order is not supported by substantial reason, in that the order does not “explain which of the criteria for good cause it applied or how it reasoned from its factual contentions to the conclusion that those criteria were not met.” Given those arguments, we review the order for legal error and for substantial reason, that is, to “determine whether [ODOT] provided a rational explanation of how its factual findings lead to the legal conclusions on which the order is based.” Arms v. SAIF, 268 Or App 761, 767 , 343 P3d 659 (2015). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Saif Corp. v. Ramos
green
2 sentences2013ORS 183.482(8); SAIF v. Ramos, 252 Or App 361, 363 , 287 P3d 1220 (2012). 2013ORS 183.482(8); SAIF v. Ramos, 252 Or App 361, 363 , 287 P3d 1220 (2012). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.