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.
17 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hudspeth v. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2016Nevertheless, the whole aim of the inquiry is to discern the true intent.” Hudspeth v. Dept. of Revenue (Hudspeth), 4 OTR 296, 298-99 (1971). 2015Nevertheless, the whole aim of the inquiry is to discern the true intent.” Hudspeth v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 296, 298-99 (1971); see also dela Rosa, 313 Or at 289-90 (stating that domicile, while based on intent, must be established by all the facts and circumstances). | 8 | 14 |
Dela Rosa v. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2015Nevertheless, the whole aim of the inquiry is to discern the true intent.” Hudspeth v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 296, 298-99 (1971); see also dela Rosa, 313 Or at 289-90 (stating that domicile, while based on intent, must be established by all the facts and circumstances). 2014Nevertheless, the whole aim of the inquiry is to discern the true intent.” Hudspeth v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 296, 298-99 (1971); see also, dela Rosa, 313 Or at 289-90 (stating that domicile, while based on intent, must be established by all the facts and circumstances). | 3 | 3 |
Martin v. City of Tigardgreen2 sentences2014See Martin v. City of Tigard, 335 Or 444 , 72 P3d 619 (2003) (context includes “any relevant statutory framework in effect at the time when the voters adopted the [constitutional] provision”). 2014See Martin v. City of Tigard, 335 Or 444 , 72 P3d 619 (2003) (context includes “any relevant statutory framework in effect at the time when the voters adopted the [constitutional] provision”). | 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. Blackburn
green
2 sentences2010In State v. Blackburn/Barber, 266 Or 28, 34 , 511 P2d 381 (1973), with reference to the “particularity requirements” of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, section 9, the court explained: “It has been explained that ‘the historical motivation for this constitutional mandate was a fear of “general warrants” giving the bearer an unlimited authority to search and seize.’ More specifically, the aim of the requirement of particularity is to protect the citizen’s interest in freedom from governmental intrusion through the invasion of his privacy. 2010In State v. Blackburn/Barber, 266 Or 28, 34 , 511 P2d 381 (1973), with reference to the “particularity requirements” of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, section 9, the court explained: “It has been explained that ‘the historical motivation for this constitutional mandate was a fear of “general warrants” giving the bearer an unlimited authority to search and seize.’ More specifically, the aim of the requirement of particularity is to protect the citizen’s interest in freedom from governmental intrusion through the invasion of his privacy. | 2 | 2000–2010 |
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.