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 1965–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eden Gate v. D & L Excavating & Truckinggreen2 sentences2023We merely note that, as is the case here, “[i]n 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). 262 Twigg v. Admiral Ins. 2023We merely note that, as is the case here, “[i]n 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). 262 Twigg v. Admiral Ins. | 2 | 11 |
Cochran v. Connellgreen2 sentences1999See also Cochran v. Connell, 53 Or App 933 , 632 P2d 1385 , rev den 292 Or 109 (1981) (in an appeal from summary judgment that resulted 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). 1999See also Cochran v. Connell, 53 Or App 933 , 632 P2d 1385 , rev den 292 Or 109 (1981) (in an appeal from summary judgment that resulted 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). | 1 | 4 |
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 |
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 |
|---|---|---|
Bergeron v. Aero Sales, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012Bergeron v. Aero Sales, Inc., 205 Or App 257, 261 , 134 P3d 964 (2006). 2012Bergeron v. Aero Sales, Inc., 205 Or App 257, 261 , 134 P3d 964 (2006). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Earls v. Clarke
green
2 sentences1965Defendants’ -silence could not be the basis for a claim -of estoppel -unless they had a legal duty to speak: Earls et ux v. Clarke et al, 223 Or 527, 532 , 355 P2d 213 . 1965Defendants’ -silence could not be the basis for a claim -of estoppel -unless they had a legal duty to speak: Earls et ux v. Clarke et al, 223 Or 527, 532 , 355 P2d 213 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.