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.
16 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1946–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Rubelgreen2 sentences2016See Belmont International v. American International, 313 Or 112, 124 , 831 P2d 15 (1992) (“‘The generally accepted test which determines whether a recovery [for money had and received may be obtained] *** is whether the defendant, in equity and good conscience, is entitled to retain the money to which the plaintiff asserts claim.’” (Quoting Smith v. Rubel, 140 Or 422, 426 , 13 P2d 1078 (1932). 2016See Belmont International v. American International, 313 Or 112, 124 , 831 P2d 15 (1992) (“‘The generally accepted test which determines whether a recovery [for money had and received may be obtained] *** is whether the defendant, in equity and good conscience, is entitled to retain the money to which the plaintiff asserts claim.’” (Quoting Smith v. Rubel, 140 Or 422, 426 , 13 P2d 1078 (1932). | 1 | 7 |
Belmont International, Inc. v. American International Shoe Co.green2 sentences2016See Belmont International v. American International, 313 Or 112, 124 , 831 P2d 15 (1992) (“‘The generally accepted test which determines whether a recovery [for money had and received may be obtained] *** is whether the defendant, in equity and good conscience, is entitled to retain the money to which the plaintiff asserts claim.’” (Quoting Smith v. Rubel, 140 Or 422, 426 , 13 P2d 1078 (1932). 2016See Belmont International v. American International, 313 Or 112, 124 , 831 P2d 15 (1992) (“‘The generally accepted test which determines whether a recovery [for money had and received may be obtained] *** is whether the defendant, in equity and good conscience, is entitled to retain the money to which the plaintiff asserts claim.’” (Quoting Smith v. Rubel, 140 Or 422, 426 , 13 P2d 1078 (1932). | 1 | 1 |
Holcomb v. Sunderlandgreen2 sentences2006See Holcomb v. Sunderland, 321 Or 99, 105 , 894 P2d 457 (1995) (the Supreme Court’s interpretation of a statute “becomes part of the statute as if it were written into law at the time of its enactment”). 2006See Holcomb v. Sunderland, 321 Or 99, 105 , 894 P2d 457 (1995) (the Supreme Court’s interpretation of a statute “becomes part of the statute as if it were written into law at the time of its enactment”). | 1 | 1 |
Yamaha Store of Bend, Oregon, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A.green2 sentences1994See Yamaha Store of Bend, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 310 Or 333, 344 , 798 P2d 656 (1990) (general rule in Oregon in regard to assessing damages is that a plaintiff should recover only such sums as will compensate the plaintiff for the injury suffered as a result of the defendant’s wrong; “when damages are susceptible to proof with approximate accuracy, the necessary evidence must be supplied”). 8 Generally, however, when a plaintiff asserts a claim for damages for future harm, the question whether those damages are recoverable is a question *658 of fact for the jury, the answer to which will 1994See Yamaha Store of Bend, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 310 Or 333, 344 , 798 P2d 656 (1990) (general rule in Oregon in regard to assessing damages is that a plaintiff should recover only such sums as will compensate the plaintiff for the injury suffered as a result of the defendant’s wrong; “when damages are susceptible to proof with approximate accuracy, the necessary evidence must be supplied”). 8 Generally, however, when a plaintiff asserts a claim for damages for future harm, the question whether those damages are recoverable is a question *658 of fact for the jury, the answer to which will | 1 | 1 |
Rosenblum v. First State Bank of Elgingreen2 sentences1985See also Rosenblum v. First State Bank of Elgin, 283 Or 123 , 581 P2d 515 (1978). 1985See also Rosenblum v. First State Bank of Elgin, 283 Or 123 , 581 P2d 515 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zehr v. Haugen
green
2 sentences2006“Generally * * * when a plaintiff asserts a claim for damages for future harm, the question whether those damages are recoverable is a question of fact for the jury, the answer to which will depend on the evidence adduced at trial.” Zehr v. Haugen, 318 Or 647, 657-58 , 871 P2d 1006 (1994). 2006“Generally * * * when a plaintiff asserts a claim for damages for future harm, the question whether those damages are recoverable is a question of fact for the jury, the answer to which will depend on the evidence adduced at trial.” Zehr v. Haugen, 318 Or 647, 657-58 , 871 P2d 1006 (1994). | 4 | 1996–2006 |
Drulard v. LeTourneau
green
2 sentences2005Drulard v. Le Tourneau, 286 Or. 159, 169 , 593 P.2d 1118 (1979) (measure of damages for violation of restrictive covenant is difference between value of dominant land with nonconforming *948 structure on servient land and value of dominant land with conforming structure on servient land). [6] One other consideration influences our analysis. 2005Drulard v. Le Tourneau, 286 Or. 159, 169 , 593 P.2d 1118 (1979) (measure of damages for violation of restrictive covenant is difference between value of dominant land with nonconforming *948 structure on servient land and value of dominant land with conforming structure on servient land). [6] One other consideration influences our analysis. | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Tadsen v. Praegitzer Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000Id. “ ‘Generally * * * when a plaintiff asserts a claim for damages for future harm, the question whether those damages are recoverable is a question of fact for the jury, the answer to which will depend on the evidence adduced at trial.’ ” Id. (quoting Zehr v. Haugen, 318 Or 647, 659 , 871 P2d 1006 (1994) (alteration in original). 2000Id. “ ‘Generally * * * when a plaintiff asserts a claim for damages for future harm, the question whether those damages are recoverable is a question of fact for the jury, the answer to which will depend on the evidence adduced at trial.’ ” Id. (quoting Zehr v. Haugen, 318 Or 647, 659 , 871 P2d 1006 (1994) (alteration in original). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Powell v. Sheets
green
2 sentences2016(Brackets and ellipsis in original.)); Powell et al. v. Sheets et al., 196 Or 682, 700 , 251 P2d 108 (1952) (action may be maintained “whenever one has money in his hands belonging to another, which, in equity and good conscience, he ought to pay over to that other”); C. 2016(Brackets and ellipsis in original.)); Powell et al. v. Sheets et al., 196 Or 682, 700 , 251 P2d 108 (1952) (action may be maintained “whenever one has money in his hands belonging to another, which, in equity and good conscience, he ought to pay over to that other”); C. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Davis v. Tyee Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences1985We hold that there exist genuine issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment. *410 The Supreme Court described the action for money had and received in Smith v. Rubel, 140 Or 422, 426 , 13 P2d 1078 (1932): “An action for money had and received, although an action at law, is governed by equitable principles. * * * The action is liberal in form and greatly favored by the courts. * * * The generally accepted test which determines whether a recovery may be had is whether the defendant, in equity and good conscience, is entitled to retain the money to which the plaintiff asserts claim. 1985We hold that there exist genuine issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment. *410 The Supreme Court described the action for money had and received in Smith v. Rubel, 140 Or 422, 426 , 13 P2d 1078 (1932): “An action for money had and received, although an action at law, is governed by equitable principles. * * * The action is liberal in form and greatly favored by the courts. * * * The generally accepted test which determines whether a recovery may be had is whether the defendant, in equity and good conscience, is entitled to retain the money to which the plaintiff asserts claim. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Golden v. Golden
green
2 sentences1978The test for determining whether a recovery should be allowed in such an action is, "whether the defendant, in equity and good conscience, is entitled to retain the money to which the plaintiff asserts claim.” Smith v. Rubel, 140 Or 422, 426 , 13 P2d 1078 , 87 ALR 644 (1932), followed in Golden v. Golden, 273 Or 506, n 8 , 541 P2d 1397 (1975). 1978The test for determining whether a recovery should be allowed in such an action is, "whether the defendant, in equity and good conscience, is entitled to retain the money to which the plaintiff asserts claim.” Smith v. Rubel, 140 Or 422, 426 , 13 P2d 1078 , 87 ALR 644 (1932), followed in Golden v. Golden, 273 Or 506, n 8 , 541 P2d 1397 (1975). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Wyvell v. Jones
neutral
1 sentence1975The generally accepted test which determines whether a recovery may be had is whether the defendant, in equity and good conscience, is entitled to retain the money to which the plaintiff asserts claim, [citations omitted]” ⑨ Restatement, of Contracts § 355 (1) and (4) (1932): “(1) The rules governing restitution as a remedy against one in default on a contract that is unenforceable by reason of a Statute of Frauds are the same as in the case of contracts not within the Statute, except as qualified by the rules stated in Subsections (2, 3,). “(4) There is no right of restitution against a defen | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Brady Et Ux v. Ray
green
2 sentences1975The generally accepted test which determines whether a recovery may be had is whether the defendant, in equity and good conscience, is entitled to retain the money to which the plaintiff asserts claim, [citations omitted]” ⑨ Restatement, of Contracts § 355 (1) and (4) (1932): “(1) The rules governing restitution as a remedy against one in default on a contract that is unenforceable by reason of a Statute of Frauds are the same as in the case of contracts not within the Statute, except as qualified by the rules stated in Subsections (2, 3,). “(4) There is no right of restitution against a defen 1975The generally accepted test which determines whether a recovery may be had is whether the defendant, in equity and good conscience, is entitled to retain the money to which the plaintiff asserts claim, [citations omitted]” ⑨ Restatement, of Contracts § 355 (1) and (4) (1932): “(1) The rules governing restitution as a remedy against one in default on a contract that is unenforceable by reason of a Statute of Frauds are the same as in the case of contracts not within the Statute, except as qualified by the rules stated in Subsections (2, 3,). “(4) There is no right of restitution against a defen | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Lanham v. Reimann
green
2 sentences1975The generally accepted test which determines whether a recovery may be had is whether the defendant, in equity and good conscience, is entitled to retain the money to which the plaintiff asserts claim, [citations omitted]” ⑨ Restatement, of Contracts § 355 (1) and (4) (1932): “(1) The rules governing restitution as a remedy against one in default on a contract that is unenforceable by reason of a Statute of Frauds are the same as in the case of contracts not within the Statute, except as qualified by the rules stated in Subsections (2, 3,). “(4) There is no right of restitution against a defen 1975The generally accepted test which determines whether a recovery may be had is whether the defendant, in equity and good conscience, is entitled to retain the money to which the plaintiff asserts claim, [citations omitted]” ⑨ Restatement, of Contracts § 355 (1) and (4) (1932): “(1) The rules governing restitution as a remedy against one in default on a contract that is unenforceable by reason of a Statute of Frauds are the same as in the case of contracts not within the Statute, except as qualified by the rules stated in Subsections (2, 3,). “(4) There is no right of restitution against a defen | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Scott v. Ford
green
2 sentences1946Jur., Payment § 187, p. 844; Scott v. Ford , 45 Or. 531 , 78 P. 742 , 80 P. 899 , 68 L.R.A. 469 ; Smith v. Rubel , 140 Or. 422 , 13 P.2d 1078 , 87 A.L.R. 644 ; Restatement, Restitution, §§ 15 to 26, incl. 1946Jur., Payment § 187, p. 844; Scott v. Ford , 45 Or. 531 , 78 P. 742 , 80 P. 899 , 68 L.R.A. 469 ; Smith v. Rubel , 140 Or. 422 , 13 P.2d 1078 , 87 A.L.R. 644 ; Restatement, Restitution, §§ 15 to 26, incl. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
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.