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.
19 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re the Marriage of Clarkgreen2 sentences2022“The determina- tion of whether the essential elements of a claim have been established—in other words, whether a prima facie case was made—is a question of law.” Clark and Clark, 171 Or App 205, 210 , 14 P3d 667 (2000). 2022“The determina- tion of whether the essential elements of a claim have been established—in other words, whether a prima facie case was made—is a question of law.” Clark and Clark, 171 Or App 205, 210 , 14 P3d 667 (2000). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Bainbridgegreen2 sentences2025Deferring to the trial court’s credibility findings, State v. Hall, 166 Or App 348, 361 , 999 P2d 509 (2000), reviewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the state [and] determin[ing] whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the violation have been proved by a preponderance of the evi- dence,” State v. Bainbridge, 230 Or App 500, 502 , 216 P3d 338 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted), we affirm. 2025Deferring to the trial court’s credibility findings, State v. Hall, 166 Or App 348, 361 , 999 P2d 509 (2000), reviewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the state [and] determin[ing] whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the violation have been proved by a preponderance of the evi- dence,” State v. Bainbridge, 230 Or App 500, 502 , 216 P3d 338 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted), we affirm. | 1 | 7 |
In re the Marriage of Castrogreen2 sentences2008Thus, in Clark, we cited Castro as providing the appropriate standard, but apparently overlooked that Castro also said that “ORCP 54 B(2) * * * clearly indicates that the task of the trial judge in ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss is not to apply the prima facie test * * Castro, 51 Or App at 710-11 (emphasis in original). 2003Dunkin v. Dunkin, 162 Or App 500, 507 , 986 P2d 706 , rev den, 329 Or 553 (1999) (quoting Castro, 51 Or App at 713 ). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Hashooshgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Hashoosh, 306 Or App 467, 468 , 473 P3d 147 (2020) (stating the standard of review for traffic violation cases). 2022See State v. Hashoosh, 306 Or App 467, 468 , 473 P3d 147 (2020) (stating the standard of review for traffic violation cases). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Madisongreen2 sentences2020See State v. Bainbridge, 230 Or App 500, 502 , 216 P3d 338 (2009) (stat- ing that standard for traffic violation cases); see also State v. Madison, 303 Or App 737, 739 , 466 P3d 92 (2020) (stating that we review the sufficiency of evidence to support a con- viction by “ ‘view[ing] the evidence in the light most favor- able to the state, accepting reasonable inferences and reason- able credibility choices that the factfinder could have made’ ” (citation omitted; emphasis added)); State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 431 (1994) (prescribing that standard and explaining that the question 2020See State v. Bainbridge, 230 Or App 500, 502 , 216 P3d 338 (2009) (stat- ing that standard for traffic violation cases); see also State v. Madison, 303 Or App 737, 739 , 466 P3d 92 (2020) (stating that we review the sufficiency of evidence to support a con- viction by “ ‘view[ing] the evidence in the light most favor- able to the state, accepting reasonable inferences and reason- able credibility choices that the factfinder could have made’ ” (citation omitted; emphasis added)); State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 431 (1994) (prescribing that standard and explaining that the question | 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. Atwood
green
2 sentences2024Cite as 332 Or App 495 (2024) 499 and determine whether a rational factfinder could find the essential elements of the violation. 2024Cite as 332 Or App 495 (2024) 499 and determine whether a rational factfinder could find the essential elements of the violation. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Hall
green
2 sentences2025Deferring to the trial court’s credibility findings, State v. Hall, 166 Or App 348, 361 , 999 P2d 509 (2000), reviewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the state [and] determin[ing] whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the violation have been proved by a preponderance of the evi- dence,” State v. Bainbridge, 230 Or App 500, 502 , 216 P3d 338 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted), we affirm. 2025Deferring to the trial court’s credibility findings, State v. Hall, 166 Or App 348, 361 , 999 P2d 509 (2000), reviewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the state [and] determin[ing] whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the violation have been proved by a preponderance of the evi- dence,” State v. Bainbridge, 230 Or App 500, 502 , 216 P3d 338 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted), we affirm. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Lipka
green
2 sentences2024And probable cause requires that “the facts that the officer per- ceived, either personally or as relayed to the officer, must in fact satisfy the elements of [an offense].” State v. Lipka, 314 Or App 154, 164 , 498 P3d 811 , rev dismissed, 368 Or 703 (2021). “[W]hen the facts an officer perceives do not meet the essential elements of the violation, probable cause is lack- ing.” Id. at 165. 2024And probable cause requires that “the facts that the officer per- ceived, either personally or as relayed to the officer, must in fact satisfy the elements of [an offense].” State v. Lipka, 314 Or App 154, 164 , 498 P3d 811 , rev dismissed, 368 Or 703 (2021). “[W]hen the facts an officer perceives do not meet the essential elements of the violation, probable cause is lack- ing.” Id. at 165. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Cunningham
green
1 sentence2020See State v. Bainbridge, 230 Or App 500, 502 , 216 P3d 338 (2009) (stat- ing that standard for traffic violation cases); see also State v. Madison, 303 Or App 737, 739 , 466 P3d 92 (2020) (stating that we review the sufficiency of evidence to support a con- viction by “ ‘view[ing] the evidence in the light most favor- able to the state, accepting reasonable inferences and reason- able credibility choices that the factfinder could have made’ ” (citation omitted; emphasis added)); State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 431 (1994) (prescribing that standard and explaining that the question | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Lawrence
green
1 sentence2020See State v. Bainbridge, 230 Or App 500, 502 , 216 P3d 338 (2009) (stat- ing that standard for traffic violation cases); see also State v. Madison, 303 Or App 737, 739 , 466 P3d 92 (2020) (stating that we review the sufficiency of evidence to support a con- viction by “ ‘view[ing] the evidence in the light most favor- able to the state, accepting reasonable inferences and reason- able credibility choices that the factfinder could have made’ ” (citation omitted; emphasis added)); State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 431 (1994) (prescribing that standard and explaining that the question | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Chen
green
2 sentences2019On a question of sufficiency of the evidence, we review the facts "in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the violation had been proved by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Chen , 266 Or. 2019App. 683 , 684, 338 P.3d 795 (2014) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Mark Wendt Homes, Inc. v. Wilcher
green
2 sentences2008For example, in Mark Wendt Homes, Inc. v. Wilcher, 186 Or App 416 , 63 P3d 1271 (2003), in which we affirmed the denial of a motion under ORCP 54 B(2) to dismiss a lien foreclosure action, we described our standard of review as follows: “Only when a plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case is it appropriate to grant such a motion. * * * We review the whole record to determine whether the plaintiff introduced ‘credible evidence’ on the essential elements of the claim.” Id. at 418 (citations omitted). 12 Our ultimate disposition in Clark did not rest on any erroneous application of th 2008For example, in Mark Wendt Homes, Inc. v. Wilcher, 186 Or App 416 , 63 P3d 1271 (2003), in which we affirmed the denial of a motion under ORCP 54 B(2) to dismiss a lien foreclosure action, we described our standard of review as follows: “Only when a plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case is it appropriate to grant such a motion. * * * We review the whole record to determine whether the plaintiff introduced ‘credible evidence’ on the essential elements of the claim.” Id. at 418 (citations omitted). 12 Our ultimate disposition in Clark did not rest on any erroneous application of th | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Dunkin v. Dunkin
green
2 sentences2003Dunkin v. Dunkin, 162 Or App 500, 507 , 986 P2d 706 , rev den, 329 Or 553 (1999) (quoting Castro, 51 Or App at 713 ). 2003Dunkin v. Dunkin, 162 Or App 500, 507 , 986 P2d 706 , rev den, 329 Or 553 (1999) (quoting Castro, 51 Or App at 713 ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Ely
green
2 sentences2000State v. Ely, 237 Or 329 , 390 P2d 348 (1964). 2000State v. Ely, 237 Or 329 , 390 P2d 348 (1964). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Ross v. DeLorenzo
green
2 sentences1995Ross v. DeLorenzo, 65 Or App 586, 590 , 672 P2d 1338 (1983). 5 In order to establish an easement by prescription, the plaintiffs must establish an open and notorious use of the defendants’ land adverse to the rights of the defendants for a continuous and uninterrupted period of ten years. 1995Ross v. DeLorenzo, 65 Or App 586, 590 , 672 P2d 1338 (1983). 5 In order to establish an easement by prescription, the plaintiffs must establish an open and notorious use of the defendants’ land adverse to the rights of the defendants for a continuous and uninterrupted period of ten years. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.