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.
18 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1952–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2025See Rogers, 330 Or at 312 (if there is only one legally correct outcome, then discre- tion does not apply, and we review for legal error). 2025See Rogers, 330 Or at 312 (if there is only one legally correct outcome, then discre- tion does not apply, and we review for legal error). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2023See also State v. Jackson, 318 Or App 370, 373 , 507 P3d 727 (2022) (explaining that the conditions set out in ORS 810.420 are conditions precedent for the issuance of a citation using a speed measurement device, and thus, the proper time to challenge the existence of those conditions is before trial).1 Accordingly, as we did with ORS 810.439(1), we conclude that ORS 810.436(1) sets out conditions prece- dent for the issuance of a citation, and the appropriate way to challenge the existence of those conditions is with a pre- trial motion. 1 In Jackson, after acknowledging the holdings of King 2023See also State v. Jackson, 318 Or App 370, 373 , 507 P3d 727 (2022) (explaining that the conditions set out in ORS 810.420 are conditions precedent for the issuance of a citation using a speed measurement device, and thus, the proper time to challenge the existence of those conditions is before trial).1 Accordingly, as we did with ORS 810.439(1), we conclude that ORS 810.436(1) sets out conditions prece- dent for the issuance of a citation, and the appropriate way to challenge the existence of those conditions is with a pre- trial motion. 1 In Jackson, after acknowledging the holdings of King | 2 | 2 |
State v. Blasingamegreen2 sentences2023See State v. Blasingame, 267 Or App 686, 692-93 , 341 P3d 182 (2014) (explaining that even though the “defendant referred to ‘due process’ generically, the gravamen of his objection was sim- ply that he disagreed with the case law” and the defendant’s “general reference to the legal concept of ‘due process’ was insufficient to preserve his appellate challenge”). 2023See State v. Blasingame, 267 Or App 686, 692-93 , 341 P3d 182 (2014) (explaining that even though the “defendant referred to ‘due process’ generically, the gravamen of his objection was sim- ply that he disagreed with the case law” and the defendant’s “general reference to the legal concept of ‘due process’ was insufficient to preserve his appellate challenge”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Schenckgreen2 sentences2005See In re Schenck, 318 Or 402, 420 , 870 P2d 185 , cert den, 513 US 871 (1994) (reasoning that, “on de novo review, determinations of credibility are given significant weight when based on the factfinder’s perception of a witness’s demeanor”). 2005See In re Schenck, 318 Or 402, 420 , 870 P2d 185 , cert den, 513 US 871 (1994) (reasoning that, “on de novo review, determinations of credibility are given significant weight when based on the factfinder’s perception of a witness’s demeanor”). | 1 | 1 |
Bricker v. Rockwell Hanford Operationsgreen1 sentence2005See In re Schenck, 318 Or 402, 420 , 870 P2d 185 , cert den, 513 US 871 (1994) (reasoning that, “on de novo review, determinations of credibility are given significant weight when based on the factfinder’s perception of a witness’s demeanor”). | 1 | 1 |
Logsdon v. SAIF Corp.green2 sentences2002See Logsdon v. SAIF, 181 Or.App. 317, 326 , 45 P.3d 990, 997 (Wollheim, J., dissenting). [3] Our dispute resolution system is premised on the belief that the adversarial system will produce the "truth" and that cross-examination is the best method for discovering the "truth." "It may be that in more than one sense, [cross-examination] takes the place in our system which torture occupied in the mediaeval system of the civilians. 2002See Logsdon v. SAIF, 181 Or.App. 317, 326 , 45 P.3d 990, 997 (Wollheim, J., dissenting). [3] Our dispute resolution system is premised on the belief that the adversarial system will produce the "truth" and that cross-examination is the best method for discovering the "truth." "It may be that in more than one sense, [cross-examination] takes the place in our system which torture occupied in the mediaeval system of the civilians. | 1 | 1 |
Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Uniongreen2 sentences1952R. & N. Co. v. Reed, 87 Or. 398 ( 169 Pac. 342 , 170 Pac. 300 ); Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union, 103 Or. 514, 545 ( 201 Pac. 222 , 205 Pac. 970 , 25 A.L.R. 1090 ). * * V ” In the annotations found in 66 ALR 777 , we find the following statement under the caption “Reformation and enforcement in same action”: “A contract may, according to the weight of authority, be reformed and a recovery had on the same as reformed, in the same action”; and also, on page 778: “There are numerous cases in which the court held proper a judgment or decree reforming a written instrument, and permitting a recovery u 1952R. & N. Co. v. Reed, 87 Or. 398 ( 169 Pac. 342 , 170 Pac. 300 ); Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union, 103 Or. 514, 545 ( 201 Pac. 222 , 205 Pac. 970 , 25 A.L.R. 1090 ). * * V ” In the annotations found in 66 ALR 777 , we find the following statement under the caption “Reformation and enforcement in same action”: “A contract may, according to the weight of authority, be reformed and a recovery had on the same as reformed, in the same action”; and also, on page 778: “There are numerous cases in which the court held proper a judgment or decree reforming a written instrument, and permitting a recovery u | 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. Ralston
green
1 sentence2022Cite as 370 Or 414 (2022) 433 of the misdemeanor information rather than waiting for the eventual indictment.9 It follows that, even if we accept that the speedy-trial clock began to run on the filing of the mis- demeanor information, and that the 40-day period between the prosecutor’s June 9, 2016, receipt of defendant’s criminal record and the July 19, 2016, indictment was unreasonable, we simply cannot conclude that that delay—or any of the other delays that defendant attributes to the state and char- acterizes as unreasonable—was the reason that the booking video was lost or was the reason | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Hankins
green
1 sentence2020“When [the defendant in Hankins] objected that he was challenging the sufficiency of the indictment, not the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court explained that a demurrer was the proper way to challenge the sufficiency of an indictment.” Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Matter of Marriage of Van Driesche
green
2 sentences2005The trial court’s mere recitation of the statutory factors, however, without any explanation of the way in which those factors, and the underlying facts, support its ultimate determination that grandmother rebutted the statutory presumption does not satisfy the standard in ORS 109.119(2)(b) to “include findings of fact supporting the rebuttal of the presumption.” As we noted in Van Driesche and Van Driesche, 194 Or App 475 , 482 n 2, 95 P3d 262 (2004), “[t]rial courts should provide *97 such explanation in order to facilitate appellate review.” Those findings may provide guidance to later cour 2005The trial court’s mere recitation of the statutory factors, however, without any explanation of the way in which those factors, and the underlying facts, support its ultimate determination that grandmother rebutted the statutory presumption does not satisfy the standard in ORS 109.119(2)(b) to “include findings of fact supporting the rebuttal of the presumption.” As we noted in Van Driesche and Van Driesche, 194 Or App 475 , 482 n 2, 95 P3d 262 (2004), “[t]rial courts should provide *97 such explanation in order to facilitate appellate review.” Those findings may provide guidance to later cour | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2002Those three factors are: "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 the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail." Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 . 2002Those three factors are: "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 the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail." Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Robinson
green
1 sentence2001The court offered little in the way of analysis; it simply noted that the legislature apparently concluded that felons could not be trusted with concealed weapons and that “we surely can not say that its decision lacks reason.” Id. at 617 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Pelletier v. Parker
green
1 sentence2001Similarly, in State v. Cartwright, 246 Or 120 , 418 P2d 822 (1966), cert den 386 US 937 (1967), the court upheld the constitutionality of a statute that prohibited felons from possessing a pistol. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Cartwright
green
2 sentences2001Similarly, in State v. Cartwright, 246 Or 120 , 418 P2d 822 (1966), cert den 386 US 937 (1967), the court upheld the constitutionality of a statute that prohibited felons from possessing a pistol. 2001Similarly, in State v. Cartwright, 246 Or 120 , 418 P2d 822 (1966), cert den 386 US 937 (1967), the court upheld the constitutionality of a statute that prohibited felons from possessing a pistol. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Holcomb
green
2 sentences1993State v. Hemkin, 102 Or App 79, 82 , 792 P2d 483 (1990). “[T]he evidence card is a means to record the results of the test; it does not affect the accuracy of the way in which the test was administered.” State v. Holcomb, 99 Or App 156, 160 , 781 P2d 396 (1989). 1993State v. Hemkin, 102 Or App 79, 82 , 792 P2d 483 (1990). “[T]he evidence card is a means to record the results of the test; it does not affect the accuracy of the way in which the test was administered.” State v. Holcomb, 99 Or App 156, 160 , 781 P2d 396 (1989). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Hemkin
neutral
2 sentences1993State v. Hemkin, 102 Or App 79, 82 , 792 P2d 483 (1990). “[T]he evidence card is a means to record the results of the test; it does not affect the accuracy of the way in which the test was administered.” State v. Holcomb, 99 Or App 156, 160 , 781 P2d 396 (1989). 1993State v. Hemkin, 102 Or App 79, 82 , 792 P2d 483 (1990). “[T]he evidence card is a means to record the results of the test; it does not affect the accuracy of the way in which the test was administered.” State v. Holcomb, 99 Or App 156, 160 , 781 P2d 396 (1989). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Johnson v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1987Although the better way to test the sufficiency of a complaint is by an ORCP 21A(8) motion or by a motion for judgment on the pleadings, ORCP 21B; Johnson v. Johnson, supra, 302 Or at 388 , defendant was not precluded from doing so in a motion for summary judgment. 2 We treat defendant’s motion as the *515 equivalent of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
United States v. Urquidez
green
1 sentence1984There are also many areas in which ‘experts’ can disagree as to the appropriateness of the way in which the test is given and as to how the results should be interpreted.” 356 F Supp at 1365 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Eagle Creek Rock Products, Inc. v. Clackamas County
green
2 sentences1983In Eagle Creek Rock Prod. v. Clackamas Co., 27 Or App 371 , 556 P2d 150 (1976), rev den 278 Or 157 (1977), we concluded that (1) the right to continue a nonconforming use is a property right established by statute, 1 (2) the existence of the right depends on the application of the statutory standard and (3) the primary jurisdiction to determine the existence of a nonconforming use lies in the circuit courts. 1983In Eagle Creek Rock Prod. v. Clackamas Co., 27 Or App 371 , 556 P2d 150 (1976), rev den 278 Or 157 (1977), we concluded that (1) the right to continue a nonconforming use is a property right established by statute, 1 (2) the existence of the right depends on the application of the statutory standard and (3) the primary jurisdiction to determine the existence of a nonconforming use lies in the circuit courts. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Buschman v. Paull
neutral
2 sentences1980Buschman v. Pauli, 278 Or 141 , 563 P2d 1197 (1977). 1980Buschman v. Pauli, 278 Or 141 , 563 P2d 1197 (1977). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Embry
green
2 sentences1977State v. Embry, 19 Or App 934 , 530 P2d 99 rev den (1974). 1977State v. Embry, 19 Or App 934 , 530 P2d 99 rev den (1974). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Raymond v. Southern Pacific Company
green
2 sentences1975Raymond v. Southern Pacific Co., 259 Or 629, 632-33 , 488 P2d 460 (1971). 1975Raymond v. Southern Pacific Co., 259 Or 629, 632-33 , 488 P2d 460 (1971). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Boardman v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania
green
2 sentences1952R. & N. Co. v. Reed, 87 Or. 398 ( 169 Pac. 342 , 170 Pac. 300 ); Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union, 103 Or. 514, 545 ( 201 Pac. 222 , 205 Pac. 970 , 25 A.L.R. 1090 ). * * V ” In the annotations found in 66 ALR 777 , we find the following statement under the caption “Reformation and enforcement in same action”: “A contract may, according to the weight of authority, be reformed and a recovery had on the same as reformed, in the same action”; and also, on page 778: “There are numerous cases in which the court held proper a judgment or decree reforming a written instrument, and permitting a recovery u 1952R. & N. Co. v. Reed, 87 Or. 398 ( 169 Pac. 342 , 170 Pac. 300 ); Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union, 103 Or. 514, 545 ( 201 Pac. 222 , 205 Pac. 970 , 25 A.L.R. 1090 ). * * V ” In the annotations found in 66 ALR 777 , we find the following statement under the caption “Reformation and enforcement in same action”: “A contract may, according to the weight of authority, be reformed and a recovery had on the same as reformed, in the same action”; and also, on page 778: “There are numerous cases in which the court held proper a judgment or decree reforming a written instrument, and permitting a recovery u | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Oregon-Wash. R. & N. Co. v. Reed
green
2 sentences1952R. & N. Co. v. Reed, 87 Or. 398 ( 169 Pac. 342 , 170 Pac. 300 ); Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union, 103 Or. 514, 545 ( 201 Pac. 222 , 205 Pac. 970 , 25 A.L.R. 1090 ). * * V ” In the annotations found in 66 ALR 777 , we find the following statement under the caption “Reformation and enforcement in same action”: “A contract may, according to the weight of authority, be reformed and a recovery had on the same as reformed, in the same action”; and also, on page 778: “There are numerous cases in which the court held proper a judgment or decree reforming a written instrument, and permitting a recovery u 1952R. & N. Co. v. Reed, 87 Or. 398 ( 169 Pac. 342 , 170 Pac. 300 ); Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union, 103 Or. 514, 545 ( 201 Pac. 222 , 205 Pac. 970 , 25 A.L.R. 1090 ). * * V ” In the annotations found in 66 ALR 777 , we find the following statement under the caption “Reformation and enforcement in same action”: “A contract may, according to the weight of authority, be reformed and a recovery had on the same as reformed, in the same action”; and also, on page 778: “There are numerous cases in which the court held proper a judgment or decree reforming a written instrument, and permitting a recovery u | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Foster v. Schmeer
green
2 sentences1952R. & N. Co. v. Reed, 87 Or. 398 ( 169 Pac. 342 , 170 Pac. 300 ); Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union, 103 Or. 514, 545 ( 201 Pac. 222 , 205 Pac. 970 , 25 A.L.R. 1090 ). * * V ” In the annotations found in 66 ALR 777 , we find the following statement under the caption “Reformation and enforcement in same action”: “A contract may, according to the weight of authority, be reformed and a recovery had on the same as reformed, in the same action”; and also, on page 778: “There are numerous cases in which the court held proper a judgment or decree reforming a written instrument, and permitting a recovery u 1952R. & N. Co. v. Reed, 87 Or. 398 ( 169 Pac. 342 , 170 Pac. 300 ); Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union, 103 Or. 514, 545 ( 201 Pac. 222 , 205 Pac. 970 , 25 A.L.R. 1090 ). * * V ” In the annotations found in 66 ALR 777 , we find the following statement under the caption “Reformation and enforcement in same action”: “A contract may, according to the weight of authority, be reformed and a recovery had on the same as reformed, in the same action”; and also, on page 778: “There are numerous cases in which the court held proper a judgment or decree reforming a written instrument, and permitting a recovery u | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Coughanour v. Hutchinson
green
2 sentences1952R. & N. Co. v. Reed, 87 Or. 398 ( 169 Pac. 342 , 170 Pac. 300 ); Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union, 103 Or. 514, 545 ( 201 Pac. 222 , 205 Pac. 970 , 25 A.L.R. 1090 ). * * V ” In the annotations found in 66 ALR 777 , we find the following statement under the caption “Reformation and enforcement in same action”: “A contract may, according to the weight of authority, be reformed and a recovery had on the same as reformed, in the same action”; and also, on page 778: “There are numerous cases in which the court held proper a judgment or decree reforming a written instrument, and permitting a recovery u 1952R. & N. Co. v. Reed, 87 Or. 398 ( 169 Pac. 342 , 170 Pac. 300 ); Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union, 103 Or. 514, 545 ( 201 Pac. 222 , 205 Pac. 970 , 25 A.L.R. 1090 ). * * V ” In the annotations found in 66 ALR 777 , we find the following statement under the caption “Reformation and enforcement in same action”: “A contract may, according to the weight of authority, be reformed and a recovery had on the same as reformed, in the same action”; and also, on page 778: “There are numerous cases in which the court held proper a judgment or decree reforming a written instrument, and permitting a recovery u | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.