17 Oregon opinions name it 3 courts 2006–2026 11 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. Gainesgreen2 sentences2026To answer that question, we apply the statutory interpretation framework articulated in State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009). 2026To answer that question, we apply the statutory interpretation framework articulated in State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009). | 3 | 15 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2025We resolve that dispute by applying the statutory interpretation framework that this court first articulated in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), and later modified in State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009). 2025We resolve that dispute by applying the statutory interpretation framework that this court first articulated in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), and later modified in State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009). | 7 | 2006–2025 |
Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. G.
neutral
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Hickey v. Scott
green
1 sentence2022Cite as 370 Or 97 (2022) 105 As in any case involving the interpretation of a stat- ute, we resolve the issue before us following the established statutory interpretation framework set out in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), as modified by State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Janowski v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
green
2 sentences2021Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009), relator contends that “the Larsen court did not follow Gaines and apply the appropriate statutory interpretation framework to ORS 163.105 (1977).” In particular, relator argues, the court gave inadequate attention to the relevant context of the statute, which he con- tends includes two later Oregon Supreme Court decisions— Janowski/Fleming v. Board of Parole, 349 Or 432 , 245 P3d 1270 (2010), and State ex rel Engweiler v. Felton, 350 Or 592 , 260 P3d 448 (2011). 2021Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009), relator contends that “the Larsen court did not follow Gaines and apply the appropriate statutory interpretation framework to ORS 163.105 (1977).” In particular, relator argues, the court gave inadequate attention to the relevant context of the statute, which he con- tends includes two later Oregon Supreme Court decisions— Janowski/Fleming v. Board of Parole, 349 Or 432 , 245 P3d 1270 (2010), and State ex rel Engweiler v. Felton, 350 Or 592 , 260 P3d 448 (2011). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State Ex Rel. Engweiler v. Felton
green
2 sentences2021Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009), relator contends that “the Larsen court did not follow Gaines and apply the appropriate statutory interpretation framework to ORS 163.105 (1977).” In particular, relator argues, the court gave inadequate attention to the relevant context of the statute, which he con- tends includes two later Oregon Supreme Court decisions— Janowski/Fleming v. Board of Parole, 349 Or 432 , 245 P3d 1270 (2010), and State ex rel Engweiler v. Felton, 350 Or 592 , 260 P3d 448 (2011). 2021Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009), relator contends that “the Larsen court did not follow Gaines and apply the appropriate statutory interpretation framework to ORS 163.105 (1977).” In particular, relator argues, the court gave inadequate attention to the relevant context of the statute, which he con- tends includes two later Oregon Supreme Court decisions— Janowski/Fleming v. Board of Parole, 349 Or 432 , 245 P3d 1270 (2010), and State ex rel Engweiler v. Felton, 350 Or 592 , 260 P3d 448 (2011). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Hval
green
1 sentence2020In prior decisions interpreting the statute, we have explained that, “[b]y its express terms, ORS 811.706 allows a court to order payment of an amount of money equal to ‘any damages caused by the person as a result of the incident that created the duties’ enumerated in ORS 811.700 and ORS 811.705.” Hval, 174 Or App at 177 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.