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.
15 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Chitwood
green
2 sentences2025Notwithstanding that framework, in this case, which is in a plain-error posture, the majority reverses after a bench trial under the principles articulated in State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305 , 518 P3d 903 (2022). 2025Notwithstanding that framework, in this case, which is in a plain-error posture, the majority reverses after a bench trial under the principles articulated in State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305 , 518 P3d 903 (2022). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Marvin Wood Products v. Callow
green
2 sentences2011Marvin Wood Products v. Callow, 171 Or App 175, 183-84 , 14 P3d 686 (2000). 2011Marvin Wood Products v. Callow, 171 Or App 175, 183-84 , 14 P3d 686 (2000). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Stevenson v. State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences1996Stevenson v. State of Oregon, 290 Or 3, 15 , 619 P2d 247 (1980). 1996Stevenson v. State of Oregon, 290 Or 3, 15 , 619 P2d 247 (1980). | 2 | 1994–1996 |
Seeborg v. General Motors Corporation
green
2 sentences1986Seeborg v. General Motors Corporation, 284 Or 695, 699 , 588 P2d 1100 (1978). 1986Seeborg v. General Motors Corporation, 284 Or 695, 699 , 588 P2d 1100 (1978). | 2 | 1984–1986 |
State v. Davis
neutral
2 sentences2020Thus, ‘mental disease or defect’ (Article 5) is an affir- mative defense and the defendant has the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence, while ‘self-defense’ (Article 4) is an ordi- nary defense and the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” 534 State v. Mayo equivalent of a directed verdict on this defense in that it is not submitted to the jury unless, of course, the state has produced evidence supporting the defense in its case-in- chief.” See State v. Davis, 14 Or App 422, 428 , 512 P2d 1366 (1973) (rejecting the defendan 2020Thus, ‘mental disease or defect’ (Article 5) is an affir- mative defense and the defendant has the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence, while ‘self-defense’ (Article 4) is an ordi- nary defense and the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” 534 State v. Mayo equivalent of a directed verdict on this defense in that it is not submitted to the jury unless, of course, the state has produced evidence supporting the defense in its case-in- chief.” See State v. Davis, 14 Or App 422, 428 , 512 P2d 1366 (1973) (rejecting the defendan | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Williams
neutral
2 sentences2020Thus, ‘mental disease or defect’ (Article 5) is an affir- mative defense and the defendant has the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence, while ‘self-defense’ (Article 4) is an ordi- nary defense and the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” 534 State v. Mayo equivalent of a directed verdict on this defense in that it is not submitted to the jury unless, of course, the state has produced evidence supporting the defense in its case-in- chief.” See State v. Davis, 14 Or App 422, 428 , 512 P2d 1366 (1973) (rejecting the defendan 2020Thus, ‘mental disease or defect’ (Article 5) is an affir- mative defense and the defendant has the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence, while ‘self-defense’ (Article 4) is an ordi- nary defense and the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” 534 State v. Mayo equivalent of a directed verdict on this defense in that it is not submitted to the jury unless, of course, the state has produced evidence supporting the defense in its case-in- chief.” See State v. Davis, 14 Or App 422, 428 , 512 P2d 1366 (1973) (rejecting the defendan | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State Ex Rel. Mikkelsen v. Hill
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 456 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Magar
green
2 sentences2011Bar Rules of Procedure (BR) 5.2. “ ‘Clear and convincing evidence’ means evidence establishing that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” In re Magar, 335 Or 306, 308 , 66 P3d 1014 (2003). 2011Bar Rules of Procedure (BR) 5.2. “ ‘Clear and convincing evidence’ means evidence establishing that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” In re Magar, 335 Or 306, 308 , 66 P3d 1014 (2003). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Branch v. Lambert
green
2 sentences2009Branch v. Lambert, 103 Or 423, 433 , 205 P 995 (1922) (“[AJctions against executors and *19 administrators are governed by the general rules that in civil actions the party having the affirmative of the issue shall produce the evidence to prove it, and, when the evidence is contradictory, the finding shall be in conformity with the preponderance of evidence.”). 2009Branch v. Lambert, 103 Or 423, 433 , 205 P 995 (1922) (“[AJctions against executors and *19 administrators are governed by the general rules that in civil actions the party having the affirmative of the issue shall produce the evidence to prove it, and, when the evidence is contradictory, the finding shall be in conformity with the preponderance of evidence.”). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Westlund
green
1 sentence1994It is not part of plaintiffs case. 2 The court in Westlund left open the question of whether a violation of ORS 426.460 can give rise to an action against the officers. 302 Or at 228-29 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Anson
green
2 sentences1992BR5.2 ; In re Anson, 302 Or 446, 453 , 730 P2d 1229 (1986). 1992BR5.2 ; In re Anson, 302 Or 446, 453 , 730 P2d 1229 (1986). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Little v. Wimmer
green
2 sentences1987Little v. Wimmer, 303 Or 580, 588 , 739 P2d 564 (1987). 1987Little v. Wimmer, 303 Or 580, 588 , 739 P2d 564 (1987). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.