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 1972–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Osborne v. Haygreen2 sentences2022See Osborne [v. Hay], 284 Or [133,] 141, 585 P2d 674 [(1978)] (quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 914, 591 (1939)).” Id. 2016See Osborne, 284 Or at 141 (quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 914, 591 (1939)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Carlsongreen2 sentences2014See State v. Carlson, 311 Or 201, 209 , 808 P2d 1002 (1991) (identifying the standard of proof for preliminary questions of fact bearing on the admissibility of evidence). 2014See State v. Carlson, 311 Or 201, 209 , 808 P2d 1002 (1991) (identifying the standard of proof for preliminary questions of fact bearing on the admissibility of evidence). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wyattgreen2 sentences2009See State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343 , 15 P3d 22 (2000) (to preserve issue for appeal, party “must provide the trial court with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct [it] immediately”). 2 What defendant did object to was the court’s application of the inventory ordinance to the particular case at hand—specifically “how do we necessarily get there in searching the person’s pockets before they’re placed in jail [as] to whether or not that regularly happens?” Th 2009See State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343 , 15 P3d 22 (2000) (to preserve issue for appeal, party “must provide the trial court with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct [it] immediately”). 2 What defendant did object to was the court’s application of the inventory ordinance to the particular case at hand—specifically “how do we necessarily get there in searching the person’s pockets before they’re placed in jail [as] to whether or not that regularly happens?” Th | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015What defendant did not dispute, how- ever, is that it did not, until 1990, qualify its “lowered tar Cite as 358 Or 88 (2015) 95 and nicotine” representation by explaining or warning that the amounts of tar and nicotine that Marlboro Lights deliver to a smoker could vary depending on how the cigarette is smoked. 2015What defendant did not dispute, how- ever, is that it did not, until 1990, qualify its “lowered tar Cite as 358 Or 88 (2015) 95 and nicotine” representation by explaining or warning that the amounts of tar and nicotine that Marlboro Lights deliver to a smoker could vary depending on how the cigarette is smoked. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Dearmitt
green
1 sentence2025Defendant contends that, in reaching the factual conclusion that defendant’s involve- ment in child sexual assault was “persistent,” the court Cite as 338 Or App 419 (2025) 431 incorrectly considered evidence in addition to the conduct described in the letters—two prior convictions for failure to register as a sex offender and one juvenile adjudication for conduct that would constitute first-degree sexual abuse. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Williams and Williams
green
1 sentence2021Having addressed situations in which the disso- lution court was aware of a possible future change in the parties’ economic circumstances and either did or did not account for it in setting support, we now turn to a poten- tially more difficult question: What standard applies when a party seeks modification of a support award based on an economic change that the dissolution court did not antici- pate when setting support, but which the other party claims Cite as 315 Or App 798 (2021) 811 the moving party could have anticipated and raised at dis- solution, instead of moving for modification onc | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Aguilar
green
1 sentence2020Cite as 307 Or App 457 (2020) 465 “Q What factors did you look at that led you to that belief? | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Langmayer
green
1 sentence2018Defendant argues that the court was not authorized to order conditions of an incarceration sentence, noting that only the Department of Corrections may do that. 1 See State v. Langmayer , 239 Or. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Illig-Renn
green
2 sentences2009What defendants fail to recognize, however, is that their predicate proposition was emphatically rejected in State v. Illig-Renn, 341 Or 228 , 142 P3d 62 (2006). 2009What defendants fail to recognize, however, is that their predicate proposition was emphatically rejected in State v. Illig-Renn, 341 Or 228 , 142 P3d 62 (2006). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006The general rule is that the appellant “must have preserved the alleged error in the trial court and raised the issues on appeal by an assignment of error in its opening brief.” Ailes v. Portland Meadows, 312 Or 376, 380 , 823 P2d 956 (1991). 2006The general rule is that the appellant “must have preserved the alleged error in the trial court and raised the issues on appeal by an assignment of error in its opening brief.” Ailes v. Portland Meadows, 312 Or 376, 380 , 823 P2d 956 (1991). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Spinney
neutral
1 sentence1997That does not impair or destroy the power of the judiciary to adjudicate, pronounce a judgment or carry it into effect.” 109 Or App at 578 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Higley
green
2 sentences1996State v. Higley, 99 Or App 298, 301 , 781 P2d 1245 (1989). 1996State v. Higley, 99 Or App 298, 301 , 781 P2d 1245 (1989). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Head
green
2 sentences1975In State v. Head, 13 Or. 1975In State v. Head, 13 Or App 317, 321-22 , 509 P2d 52 , Sup Ct review denied (1973), we stated the justification for an investigatory stop is a reasonable suspicion of a connection with criminal activity. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Smith v. Cooper
green
2 sentences1973In Smith v. Cooper, 256 Or 485 , 475 P2d 78 , 45 ALR3d 857 (1970), the court discussed at length the concept of “discretionary duties” in reference to actions of the State Highway Commission. 1973In Smith v. Cooper, 256 Or 485 , 475 P2d 78 , 45 ALR3d 857 (1970), the court discussed at length the concept of “discretionary duties” in reference to actions of the State Highway Commission. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1972Defendant’s brief on appeal interprets that objection as follows: “* * * What defense counsel was doing in asking for an in-eamera hearing was to show the defendant’s statement, if made, violated the rules set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 , 86 S Ct 1602 , 16 L. 1972Defendant’s brief on appeal interprets that objection as follows: “* * * What defense counsel was doing in asking for an in-eamera hearing was to show the defendant’s statement, if made, violated the rules set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 , 86 S Ct 1602 , 16 L. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.