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 1997–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Duk Ki Park v. Hoffardgreen2 sentences2009See Park v. Hoffard, 111 Or App 340 , 826 P2d 79 (1992), aff'd as modified, 315 Or 624 , 847 P2d 852 (1993) (so concluding). 6 Hageman did not contend that there were bases for dismissing plaintiffs’ tort claims against her other than those asserted on behalf of all of the defendants. 7 “In an appeal from a judgment that results from cross-motions for summary judgment, if both the granting of one motion and the denial of the other are assigned as error, then both are subject to review.” Eden Gate, Inc. v. D&L Excavating & Trucking, Inc., 178 Or App 610, 622 , 37 P3d 233 (2002) (citation omitte 2009See Park v. Hoffard, 111 Or App 340 , 826 P2d 79 (1992), aff'd as modified, 315 Or 624 , 847 P2d 852 (1993) (so concluding). 6 Hageman did not contend that there were bases for dismissing plaintiffs’ tort claims against her other than those asserted on behalf of all of the defendants. 7 “In an appeal from a judgment that results from cross-motions for summary judgment, if both the granting of one motion and the denial of the other are assigned as error, then both are subject to review.” Eden Gate, Inc. v. D&L Excavating & Trucking, Inc., 178 Or App 610, 622 , 37 P3d 233 (2002) (citation omitte | 1 | 1 |
Eden Gate v. D & L Excavating & Truckinggreen2 sentences2009See Park v. Hoffard, 111 Or App 340 , 826 P2d 79 (1992), aff'd as modified, 315 Or 624 , 847 P2d 852 (1993) (so concluding). 6 Hageman did not contend that there were bases for dismissing plaintiffs’ tort claims against her other than those asserted on behalf of all of the defendants. 7 “In an appeal from a judgment that results from cross-motions for summary judgment, if both the granting of one motion and the denial of the other are assigned as error, then both are subject to review.” Eden Gate, Inc. v. D&L Excavating & Trucking, Inc., 178 Or App 610, 622 , 37 P3d 233 (2002) (citation omitte 2009See Park v. Hoffard, 111 Or App 340 , 826 P2d 79 (1992), aff'd as modified, 315 Or 624 , 847 P2d 852 (1993) (so concluding). 6 Hageman did not contend that there were bases for dismissing plaintiffs’ tort claims against her other than those asserted on behalf of all of the defendants. 7 “In an appeal from a judgment that results from cross-motions for summary judgment, if both the granting of one motion and the denial of the other are assigned as error, then both are subject to review.” Eden Gate, Inc. v. D&L Excavating & Trucking, Inc., 178 Or App 610, 622 , 37 P3d 233 (2002) (citation omitte | 1 | 1 |
Park v. Hoffardgreen2 sentences2009See Park v. Hoffard, 111 Or App 340 , 826 P2d 79 (1992), aff'd as modified, 315 Or 624 , 847 P2d 852 (1993) (so concluding). 6 Hageman did not contend that there were bases for dismissing plaintiffs’ tort claims against her other than those asserted on behalf of all of the defendants. 7 “In an appeal from a judgment that results from cross-motions for summary judgment, if both the granting of one motion and the denial of the other are assigned as error, then both are subject to review.” Eden Gate, Inc. v. D&L Excavating & Trucking, Inc., 178 Or App 610, 622 , 37 P3d 233 (2002) (citation omitte 2009See Park v. Hoffard, 111 Or App 340 , 826 P2d 79 (1992), aff'd as modified, 315 Or 624 , 847 P2d 852 (1993) (so concluding). 6 Hageman did not contend that there were bases for dismissing plaintiffs’ tort claims against her other than those asserted on behalf of all of the defendants. 7 “In an appeal from a judgment that results from cross-motions for summary judgment, if both the granting of one motion and the denial of the other are assigned as error, then both are subject to review.” Eden Gate, Inc. v. D&L Excavating & Trucking, Inc., 178 Or App 610, 622 , 37 P3d 233 (2002) (citation omitte | 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. Gaines
green
2 sentences2021To determine the intended meaning of a statute, we use the analytic framework set forth in State v. Gaines, which requires us to look to the text of the statute in its context along with helpful legislative history. 346 Or 160, 171-72 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009). 2021To determine the intended meaning of a statute, we use the analytic framework set forth in State v. Gaines, which requires us to look to the text of the statute in its context along with helpful legislative history. 346 Or 160, 171-72 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009). | 6 | 2011–2021 |
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2011ANALYSIS When this court interprets a statutory term or provision, it follows the analytic framework set out in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-11 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), as modified by State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009) — that is, we consider the text and context and, if appropriate, the legislative history. 2011ANALYSIS When this court interprets a statutory term or provision, it follows the analytic framework set out in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-11 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), as modified by State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009) — that is, we consider the text and context and, if appropriate, the legislative history. | 3 | 1999–2011 |
Arnold v. Kotek
green
1 sentence2025We first observe that the large-capacity magazine ban is not a ban on any particular type of firearm or consti- tutionally protected arm—it is a ban on possessing maga- zines that allow a firearm to discharge more than 10 rounds Cite as 338 Or App 556 (2025) 577 without having to reload. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Horton v. Oregon Health & Science University
green
2 sentences2023Held: Applying the analytic framework set forth in Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or 168 , 376 P3d 998 (2016), the Court of Appeals concluded that, in view of the case law reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Horton, where, as here, a plaintiff has a remedy for an injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act, the application of ORS 30.265(6)(a) to preclude tort remedies against third- party state employees does not violate the remedy clause of Article I, section 10. 2023Held: Applying the analytic framework set forth in Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or 168 , 376 P3d 998 (2016), the Court of Appeals concluded that, in view of the case law reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Horton, where, as here, a plaintiff has a remedy for an injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act, the application of ORS 30.265(6)(a) to preclude tort remedies against third- party state employees does not violate the remedy clause of Article I, section 10. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Barrett
green
2 sentences2021That conclusion flows from our subsidiary determinations that (1) under State v. Fujimoto, 266 Or App 353 , 338 P3d 180 (2014), all of those counts involve the same criminal epi- sode for purposes of ORS 161.067(2); (2) under the analytic framework established in State v. Barrett, 331 Or 27 , 10 P3d 901 (2000), each of those counts involves the same statutory provision for purposes of ORS 161.067(1); (3) each of those counts involves a single victim (the public) for purposes of ORS 161.067(2); and (4) finally, on this particular record, none of Counts 2, 3, 14, and 15, is separated by a “suffi 2021That conclusion flows from our subsidiary determinations that (1) under State v. Fujimoto, 266 Or App 353 , 338 P3d 180 (2014), all of those counts involve the same criminal epi- sode for purposes of ORS 161.067(2); (2) under the analytic framework established in State v. Barrett, 331 Or 27 , 10 P3d 901 (2000), each of those counts involves the same statutory provision for purposes of ORS 161.067(1); (3) each of those counts involves a single victim (the public) for purposes of ORS 161.067(2); and (4) finally, on this particular record, none of Counts 2, 3, 14, and 15, is separated by a “suffi | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Fujimoto
green
2 sentences2021That conclusion flows from our subsidiary determinations that (1) under State v. Fujimoto, 266 Or App 353 , 338 P3d 180 (2014), all of those counts involve the same criminal epi- sode for purposes of ORS 161.067(2); (2) under the analytic framework established in State v. Barrett, 331 Or 27 , 10 P3d 901 (2000), each of those counts involves the same statutory provision for purposes of ORS 161.067(1); (3) each of those counts involves a single victim (the public) for purposes of ORS 161.067(2); and (4) finally, on this particular record, none of Counts 2, 3, 14, and 15, is separated by a “suffi 2021That conclusion flows from our subsidiary determinations that (1) under State v. Fujimoto, 266 Or App 353 , 338 P3d 180 (2014), all of those counts involve the same criminal epi- sode for purposes of ORS 161.067(2); (2) under the analytic framework established in State v. Barrett, 331 Or 27 , 10 P3d 901 (2000), each of those counts involves the same statutory provision for purposes of ORS 161.067(1); (3) each of those counts involves a single victim (the public) for purposes of ORS 161.067(2); and (4) finally, on this particular record, none of Counts 2, 3, 14, and 15, is separated by a “suffi | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bruce v. Cascade Collections, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011To determine if the principle in Page is satisfied, we have adopted an analytic framework in which “the threshold inquiry is whether the pleading [at issue] adequately alleged the facts that provide the basis for the fee entitlement.” Bruce v. Cascade Collections, Inc., 199 Or App *692 59, 66, 110 P3d 587 , rev den, 339 Or 66 (2005). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Holmes
green
1 sentence2011He contends that an arrest is defined to include “plac[ing] a person under actual or constructive restraint,]” ORS 133.005(1); Holmes, 311 Or at 407 , and that no plausible judicial gloss on that statute can lead to the conclusion that a person who has been handcuffed at gunpoint and locked into a police car is not under actual restraint. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Norman v. Reed
green
2 sentences2002The analytic framework described above also was used by the Court in Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 , 112 S.Ct. 698 , 116 L.Ed.2d 711 (1992), which concerned First Amendment associational rights. 2002The analytic framework described above also was used by the Court in Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 , 112 S.Ct. 698 , 116 L.Ed.2d 711 (1992), which concerned First Amendment associational rights. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party
green
2 sentences2002The next step of the process is to "weigh the character and magnitude of the burden the State's rule imposes on [plaintiffs'] rights against the interests the State contends justify the burden, and consider the extent to which the State's concerns make the burden necessary." Timmons, 520 U.S. at 358 , 117 S.Ct. 1364 . 2002The next step of the process is to "weigh the character and magnitude of the burden the State's rule imposes on [plaintiffs'] rights against the interests the State contends justify the burden, and consider the extent to which the State's concerns make the burden necessary." Timmons, 520 U.S. at 358 , 117 S.Ct. 1364 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Solem v. Helm
red
2 sentences2000The lead opinion and the dissent each follow the analytic framework discussed in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), a case decided under the Eighth Amendment. 2000The lead opinion and the dissent each follow the analytic framework discussed in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), a case decided under the Eighth Amendment. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
McIntire v. Forbes
green
2 sentences1997McIntire v. Forbes, 322 Or 426, 443-44 , 909 P2d 846 (1996), provided the analytic framework for Article IV, section 20 one-subject challenges to the body of an act. 1997McIntire v. Forbes, 322 Or 426, 443-44 , 909 P2d 846 (1996), provided the analytic framework for Article IV, section 20 one-subject challenges to the body of an act. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.