14 Oregon opinions name it 3 courts 1919–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Mayfieldgreen2 sentences2016Id. at 17; see also Chapman v. Mayfield, 358 Or 196, 205 , 361 P3d 566 (2015) (discussing expanding scope of liability for negligence). 44 One other possible distinction requires mention. 2016Id. at 17; see also Chapman v. Mayfield, 358 Or 196, 205 , 361 P3d 566 (2015) (discussing expanding scope of liability for negligence). 44 One other possible distinction requires mention. | 2 | 2 |
Perkins v. Dept. of Rev.green1 sentence2018Compare Perkins v. Dept. of Rev., 22 OTR 370 (2017) (holding collection claims relating to the department’s issuance and enforcement of timber tax warrants are outside the tax court’s juris- diction), with Christensen v. Dept. of Rev., 22 OTR 384 (2017) (holding that collection claims relating to install- ment plans with the department are within the tax court’s jurisdiction). | 1 | 1 |
Christensen v. Dept. of Rev.green1 sentence2018Compare Perkins v. Dept. of Rev., 22 OTR 370 (2017) (holding collection claims relating to the department’s issuance and enforcement of timber tax warrants are outside the tax court’s juris- diction), with Christensen v. Dept. of Rev., 22 OTR 384 (2017) (holding that collection claims relating to install- ment plans with the department are within the tax court’s jurisdiction). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fazzolari v. Portland School District No. 1J
green
2 sentences2025No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 17 , 734 P2d 1326 (1987) (“[U] nless the parties invoke a status, a relationship, or a par- ticular standard of conduct that creates, defines, or limits the defendant’s duty, the issue of liability for harm actually 2 We note that, under Eagle Point Municipal Code 12.04.020, owners of prop- erty have the obligation to “maintain all sidewalks abutting upon their property in good condition and safe for use by the public.” Further, we note that Eagle Point Municipal Code 12.04.050 through 12.04.090 sets forth a process for remediation of sidewalks that are “unsafe or hazardous f 2025No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 17 , 734 P2d 1326 (1987) (“[U] nless the parties invoke a status, a relationship, or a par- ticular standard of conduct that creates, defines, or limits the defendant’s duty, the issue of liability for harm actually 2 We note that, under Eagle Point Municipal Code 12.04.020, owners of prop- erty have the obligation to “maintain all sidewalks abutting upon their property in good condition and safe for use by the public.” Further, we note that Eagle Point Municipal Code 12.04.050 through 12.04.090 sets forth a process for remediation of sidewalks that are “unsafe or hazardous f | 8 | 2014–2025 |
Piazza v. Kellim
green
2 sentences2016Cite as 360 Or 58 (2016) 71 “unless the parties invoke a status, a relationship, or a par- ticular standard of conduct that creates, defines, or limits the defendant’s duty, the issue of liability for harm actually resulting from defendant’s conduct properly depends on whether that conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk to a protected interest of the kind of harm that befell the plaintiff. 2016Cite as 360 Or 58 (2016) 71 “unless the parties invoke a status, a relationship, or a par- ticular standard of conduct that creates, defines, or limits the defendant’s duty, the issue of liability for harm actually resulting from defendant’s conduct properly depends on whether that conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk to a protected interest of the kind of harm that befell the plaintiff. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Stone
green
2 sentences2025“In the mental-state context in par- ticular, the pertinent inquiry ‘is not whether a jury could have found defendant to have the requisite mental state on this record; rather, it is whether there is some likelihood that the jury might not have been persuaded that he had the requisite mental state, had it considered that issue.’ ” State v. Horton, 327 Or App 256, 263 , 535 P3d 338 (2023) (quoting State v. Stone, 324 Or App 688, 695 , 527 P3d 800 (2023) (emphasis in original)). 2025“In the mental-state context in par- ticular, the pertinent inquiry ‘is not whether a jury could have found defendant to have the requisite mental state on this record; rather, it is whether there is some likelihood that the jury might not have been persuaded that he had the requisite mental state, had it considered that issue.’ ” State v. Horton, 327 Or App 256, 263 , 535 P3d 338 (2023) (quoting State v. Stone, 324 Or App 688, 695 , 527 P3d 800 (2023) (emphasis in original)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Horton
green
2 sentences2025“In the mental-state context in par- ticular, the pertinent inquiry ‘is not whether a jury could have found defendant to have the requisite mental state on this record; rather, it is whether there is some likelihood that the jury might not have been persuaded that he had the requisite mental state, had it considered that issue.’ ” State v. Horton, 327 Or App 256, 263 , 535 P3d 338 (2023) (quoting State v. Stone, 324 Or App 688, 695 , 527 P3d 800 (2023) (emphasis in original)). 2025“In the mental-state context in par- ticular, the pertinent inquiry ‘is not whether a jury could have found defendant to have the requisite mental state on this record; rather, it is whether there is some likelihood that the jury might not have been persuaded that he had the requisite mental state, had it considered that issue.’ ” State v. Horton, 327 Or App 256, 263 , 535 P3d 338 (2023) (quoting State v. Stone, 324 Or App 688, 695 , 527 P3d 800 (2023) (emphasis in original)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2025We must affirm a conviction if there is “little likelihood that the par- ticular error affected the verdict.” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 , 77 P3d 1111 (2003). 2025We must affirm a conviction if there is “little likelihood that the par- ticular error affected the verdict.” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 , 77 P3d 1111 (2003). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Robintree
green
1 sentence2023Cite as 325 Or App 267 (2023) 279 In this case, viewed in the context of the record as a whole, we conclude that there is little likelihood that the par- ticular error—preventing defendant from cross-examining M about her pending juvenile adjudications—affected the verdict. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Saavedra v. Moreno
green
1 sentence1919“Court: You will be allowed an exception.” And a little later: “To the giving of the instructions 6 and 7, and to the giving of each thereof, the plaintiff at the time excepted.” It is doubtful if this is a sufficient exception under the rule that where a charge covers more than one proposition, part of which is good and part of which is bad, a general exception is not sufficient, but the par ticular error must be specifically pointed out: Murray v. Murray, 6 Or. 17 ; Langford v. Jones, 18 Or. 330 ( 22 Pac. 1064 ); Jensen v. Foss, 24 Or. 158 ( 33 Pac. 535 ); McAlister v. Long, 33 Or. 368 ( 54 | 1 | 1919–1919 |
State Ex Rel. Stevenson v. Tufly
green
1 sentence1919“Court: You will be allowed an exception.” And a little later: “To the giving of the instructions 6 and 7, and to the giving of each thereof, the plaintiff at the time excepted.” It is doubtful if this is a sufficient exception under the rule that where a charge covers more than one proposition, part of which is good and part of which is bad, a general exception is not sufficient, but the par ticular error must be specifically pointed out: Murray v. Murray, 6 Or. 17 ; Langford v. Jones, 18 Or. 330 ( 22 Pac. 1064 ); Jensen v. Foss, 24 Or. 158 ( 33 Pac. 535 ); McAlister v. Long, 33 Or. 368 ( 54 | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Murray v. Murray
green
1 sentence1919“Court: You will be allowed an exception.” And a little later: “To the giving of the instructions 6 and 7, and to the giving of each thereof, the plaintiff at the time excepted.” It is doubtful if this is a sufficient exception under the rule that where a charge covers more than one proposition, part of which is good and part of which is bad, a general exception is not sufficient, but the par ticular error must be specifically pointed out: Murray v. Murray, 6 Or. 17 ; Langford v. Jones, 18 Or. 330 ( 22 Pac. 1064 ); Jensen v. Foss, 24 Or. 158 ( 33 Pac. 535 ); McAlister v. Long, 33 Or. 368 ( 54 | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Messinger v. Watson
neutral
1 sentence1919“Court: You will be allowed an exception.” And a little later: “To the giving of the instructions 6 and 7, and to the giving of each thereof, the plaintiff at the time excepted.” It is doubtful if this is a sufficient exception under the rule that where a charge covers more than one proposition, part of which is good and part of which is bad, a general exception is not sufficient, but the par ticular error must be specifically pointed out: Murray v. Murray, 6 Or. 17 ; Langford v. Jones, 18 Or. 330 ( 22 Pac. 1064 ); Jensen v. Foss, 24 Or. 158 ( 33 Pac. 535 ); McAlister v. Long, 33 Or. 368 ( 54 | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Jensen v. Foss
neutral
1 sentence1919“Court: You will be allowed an exception.” And a little later: “To the giving of the instructions 6 and 7, and to the giving of each thereof, the plaintiff at the time excepted.” It is doubtful if this is a sufficient exception under the rule that where a charge covers more than one proposition, part of which is good and part of which is bad, a general exception is not sufficient, but the par ticular error must be specifically pointed out: Murray v. Murray, 6 Or. 17 ; Langford v. Jones, 18 Or. 330 ( 22 Pac. 1064 ); Jensen v. Foss, 24 Or. 158 ( 33 Pac. 535 ); McAlister v. Long, 33 Or. 368 ( 54 | 1 | 1919–1919 |
McAlister v. Long
neutral
2 sentences1919“Court: You will be allowed an exception.” And a little later: “To the giving of the instructions 6 and 7, and to the giving of each thereof, the plaintiff at the time excepted.” It is doubtful if this is a sufficient exception under the rule that where a charge covers more than one proposition, part of which is good and part of which is bad, a general exception is not sufficient, but the par ticular error must be specifically pointed out: Murray v. Murray, 6 Or. 17 ; Langford v. Jones, 18 Or. 330 ( 22 Pac. 1064 ); Jensen v. Foss, 24 Or. 158 ( 33 Pac. 535 ); McAlister v. Long, 33 Or. 368 ( 54 1919“Court: You will be allowed an exception.” And a little later: “To the giving of the instructions 6 and 7, and to the giving of each thereof, the plaintiff at the time excepted.” It is doubtful if this is a sufficient exception under the rule that where a charge covers more than one proposition, part of which is good and part of which is bad, a general exception is not sufficient, but the par ticular error must be specifically pointed out: Murray v. Murray, 6 Or. 17 ; Langford v. Jones, 18 Or. 330 ( 22 Pac. 1064 ); Jensen v. Foss, 24 Or. 158 ( 33 Pac. 535 ); McAlister v. Long, 33 Or. 368 ( 54 | 1 | 1919–1919 |
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.