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 2016–2026 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc.green2 sentences2026A trial court abuses its discretion if it makes a decision that is “guided by the wrong substantive standard” or that is “based on predicate legal conclusions that are erroneous or predicate factual determinations that lack sufficient evidentiary support.” Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., 359 Or 63 , 116- 18, 376 P3d 960 (2016). 2026A trial court abuses its discretion if it makes a decision that is “guided by the wrong substantive standard” or that is “based on predicate legal conclusions that are erroneous or predicate factual determinations that lack sufficient evidentiary support.” Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., 359 Or 63 , 116- 18, 376 P3d 960 (2016). | 3 | 11 |
State v. Sarichgreen2 sentences2018A trial court can exceed the bounds of its permitted discretion in several ways. "[A] trial court's decision may be legally impermissible because it was guided by the wrong substantive standard." Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc. , 359 Or. 63 , 116-17, 376 P.3d 960 (2016) ; see State v. Sarich , 352 Or. 601 , 615, 291 P.3d 647 (2012) (as a prerequisite to the exercise of discretion, a court must apply the correct legal standard for determining the scope of that discretion). 2018A trial court can exceed the bounds of its permitted discretion in several ways. "[A] trial court's decision may be legally impermissible because it was guided by the wrong substantive standard." Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc. , 359 Or. 63 , 116-17, 376 P.3d 960 (2016) ; see State v. Sarich , 352 Or. 601 , 615, 291 P.3d 647 (2012) (as a prerequisite to the exercise of discretion, a court must apply the correct legal standard for determining the scope of that discretion). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hightowergreen2 sentences2018App. at 734 , 403 P.3d 484 (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v. Hightower , 361 Or. 412 , 421, 393 P.3d 224 (2017) (discretion "may be predicated on certain subsidiary determinations-either findings of fact or conclusions of law-that trigger their own standards of review"). *745 Here we conclude that the court abused its discretion as a matter of law, because it declined to consider petitioner's "suitable counsel" request under circumstances that required it to do so. 2018App. at 734 , 403 P.3d 484 (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v. Hightower , 361 Or. 412 , 421, 393 P.3d 224 (2017) (discretion "may be predicated on certain subsidiary determinations-either findings of fact or conclusions of law-that trigger their own standards of review"). *745 Here we conclude that the court abused its discretion as a matter of law, because it declined to consider petitioner's "suitable counsel" request under circumstances that required it to do so. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Harrell / Wilson
green
2 sentences2024“A court abuses its discretion if it makes a decision that is ‘guided by the wrong substantive standard,’ or that is ‘based on predicate legal conclusions that are erroneous or predicate factual determinations that lack sufficient evidentiary support.’ ” Id. (quoting Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., 359 Or 63, 116-17 , 376 P3d 960 (2016)). 2024“A court abuses its discretion if it makes a decision that is ‘guided by the wrong substantive standard,’ or that is ‘based on predicate legal conclusions that are erroneous or predicate factual determinations that lack sufficient evidentiary support.’ ” Id. (quoting Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., 359 Or 63, 116-17 , 376 P3d 960 (2016)). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Mayfield
green
2 sentences2019See, e.g., Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., 359 Or 63 , *639 116-17, 376 P3d 960 (2016) (“[A] trial court’s decision may be legally impermissible because it was guided by the wrong substantive standard.”); State v. Mayfield, 302 Or 631, 645 , 733 P2d 438 (1987) (explaining that, in some circumstances, a trial court can err if it “fails to exercise discretion, refuses to exercise discretion[,] or fails to make a record which reflects an exercise of discretion”); State v. Pemberton, 226 Or App 285, 289 , 203 P3d 326 (2009) (holding that, under Mayfield, the exercise of discretion based o 2019See, e.g., Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., 359 Or 63 , *639 116-17, 376 P3d 960 (2016) (“[A] trial court’s decision may be legally impermissible because it was guided by the wrong substantive standard.”); State v. Mayfield, 302 Or 631, 645 , 733 P2d 438 (1987) (explaining that, in some circumstances, a trial court can err if it “fails to exercise discretion, refuses to exercise discretion[,] or fails to make a record which reflects an exercise of discretion”); State v. Pemberton, 226 Or App 285, 289 , 203 P3d 326 (2009) (holding that, under Mayfield, the exercise of discretion based o | 2 | 2017–2019 |
State v. Pemberton
green
2 sentences2019See, e.g., Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., 359 Or 63 , *639 116-17, 376 P3d 960 (2016) (“[A] trial court’s decision may be legally impermissible because it was guided by the wrong substantive standard.”); State v. Mayfield, 302 Or 631, 645 , 733 P2d 438 (1987) (explaining that, in some circumstances, a trial court can err if it “fails to exercise discretion, refuses to exercise discretion[,] or fails to make a record which reflects an exercise of discretion”); State v. Pemberton, 226 Or App 285, 289 , 203 P3d 326 (2009) (holding that, under Mayfield, the exercise of discretion based o 2019See, e.g., Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., 359 Or 63 , *639 116-17, 376 P3d 960 (2016) (“[A] trial court’s decision may be legally impermissible because it was guided by the wrong substantive standard.”); State v. Mayfield, 302 Or 631, 645 , 733 P2d 438 (1987) (explaining that, in some circumstances, a trial court can err if it “fails to exercise discretion, refuses to exercise discretion[,] or fails to make a record which reflects an exercise of discretion”); State v. Pemberton, 226 Or App 285, 289 , 203 P3d 326 (2009) (holding that, under Mayfield, the exercise of discretion based o | 2 | 2017–2019 |
Estens v. Wells
neutral
1 sentence2026Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
C. R. v. Eugene School Dist. 4J
neutral
1 sentence2023Id. at 777-78 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Lopez v. Nooth
green
2 sentences2018App. at 734 , 403 P.3d 484 (internal quotation marks omitted); see State v. Hightower , 361 Or. 412 , 421, 393 P.3d 224 (2017) (discretion "may be predicated on certain subsidiary determinations-either findings of fact or conclusions of law-that trigger their own standards of review"). *745 Here we conclude that the court abused its discretion as a matter of law, because it declined to consider petitioner's "suitable counsel" request under circumstances that required it to do so. 2018However, when a trial court's exercise of discretion "flows from a mistaken *172 legal premise, its decision * * * may be legally impermissible because it was guided by the wrong substantive standard." Lopez , 287 Or. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bradbury v. Teacher Standards & Practices Commission
green
2 sentences2016The trial court also applied the wrong substantive standard to guide its decision by failing to “assume the truth of all well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint and give plaintiff[s], as the nonmoving parities], the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from those facts.” Bradbury, 328 Or at 393 . 2016The trial court also applied the wrong substantive standard to guide its decision by failing to “assume the truth of all well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint and give plaintiff[s], as the nonmoving parities], the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from those facts.” Bradbury, 328 Or at 393 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.