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.
13 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1959–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Forest Grove Brick Works, Inc. v. Stricklandgreen2 sentences2016Cf., Gaston v. Parsons, 318 Or 247, 266 , 864 P2d 1319 (1994) (Peterson, J., dissenting) (“constructive knowledge” of harm refers to when, “in the exercise of reasonable care,” it should have been discovered even if not actually discovered); Forest Grove Brick v. Strickland, 277 Or 81, 86 , 559 P2d 502 (1977) (“constructive knowledge” refers to a person “charged with knowledge that a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2016Cf., Gaston v. Parsons, 318 Or 247, 266 , 864 P2d 1319 (1994) (Peterson, J., dissenting) (“constructive knowledge” of harm refers to when, “in the exercise of reasonable care,” it should have been discovered even if not actually discovered); Forest Grove Brick v. Strickland, 277 Or 81, 86 , 559 P2d 502 (1977) (“constructive knowledge” refers to a person “charged with knowledge that a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose” (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 3 | 5 |
Mathies v. Hoeckgreen2 sentences1998We apply a two-step analysis to determine whether plaintiff should have known of the alleged misrepresentations before August 21,1994: “First, it must appear that plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to ‘excite attention and put a party upon his guard or call for an inquiry * * *.’ [Second] [i]f plaintiff had such knowledge, it must also appear that ‘a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose’ the fraud.” Mathies v. Hoeck, 284 Or 539, 543 , 588 P2d 1 (1978) (citations omitted). 1998We apply a two-step analysis to determine whether plaintiff should have known of the alleged misrepresentations before August 21,1994: “First, it must appear that plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to ‘excite attention and put a party upon his guard or call for an inquiry * * *.’ [Second] [i]f plaintiff had such knowledge, it must also appear that ‘a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose’ the fraud.” Mathies v. Hoeck, 284 Or 539, 543 , 588 P2d 1 (1978) (citations omitted). | 2 | 4 |
cluster 10858193green1 sentence2026However, that definition also refers to “notice or knowledge sufficient to excite attention and put [a] person on guard and call for inquiry.” Id. at 1012; see also Cameron v. Edgemont Investment Co., 136 Or 385, 397 , 299 P 698 (1931) (“[N]otice of acts and circumstances which would put a man of ordinary prudence and intelligence upon inquiry is equivalent in the eyes of the law to knowledge of all the Cite as 349 Or App 520 (2026) 527 facts a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose.”). | 1 | 1 |
Cameron v. Edgemont Investment Co.green2 sentences2026However, that definition also refers to “notice or knowledge sufficient to excite attention and put [a] person on guard and call for inquiry.” Id. at 1012; see also Cameron v. Edgemont Investment Co., 136 Or 385, 397 , 299 P 698 (1931) (“[N]otice of acts and circumstances which would put a man of ordinary prudence and intelligence upon inquiry is equivalent in the eyes of the law to knowledge of all the Cite as 349 Or App 520 (2026) 527 facts a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose.”). 2026However, that definition also refers to “notice or knowledge sufficient to excite attention and put [a] person on guard and call for inquiry.” Id. at 1012; see also Cameron v. Edgemont Investment Co., 136 Or 385, 397 , 299 P 698 (1931) (“[N]otice of acts and circumstances which would put a man of ordinary prudence and intelligence upon inquiry is equivalent in the eyes of the law to knowledge of all the Cite as 349 Or App 520 (2026) 527 facts a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose.”). | 1 | 1 |
Housley v. Linnton Plywood Ass'ngreen2 sentences1959See, Housley et ux. v. Linnton Plywood Ass’n, 210 Or 520, 529 , 311 P2d 432 , and cases there cited. 1959See, Housley et ux. v. Linnton Plywood Ass’n, 210 Or 520, 529 , 311 P2d 432 , and cases there cited. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wood Et Ux v. Baker Et Ux
green
2 sentences1986Wood v. Baker, 217 Or 279, 287 , 341 P2d 134 (1959).” The court also stated: “Whether or not the plaintiff should have known of the fraud at a particular point in time is normally a question for the jury except where only one conclusion can reasonably be drawn from the evidence.” 284 Or at 543 . 1986Wood v. Baker, 217 Or 279, 287 , 341 P2d 134 (1959).” The court also stated: “Whether or not the plaintiff should have known of the fraud at a particular point in time is normally a question for the jury except where only one conclusion can reasonably be drawn from the evidence.” 284 Or at 543 . | 4 | 1978–1986 |
Gaston v. Parsons
green
2 sentences2016Cf., Gaston v. Parsons, 318 Or 247, 266 , 864 P2d 1319 (1994) (Peterson, J., dissenting) (“constructive knowledge” of harm refers to when, “in the exercise of reasonable care,” it should have been discovered even if not actually discovered); Forest Grove Brick v. Strickland, 277 Or 81, 86 , 559 P2d 502 (1977) (“constructive knowledge” refers to a person “charged with knowledge that a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2016Cf., Gaston v. Parsons, 318 Or 247, 266 , 864 P2d 1319 (1994) (Peterson, J., dissenting) (“constructive knowledge” of harm refers to when, “in the exercise of reasonable care,” it should have been discovered even if not actually discovered); Forest Grove Brick v. Strickland, 277 Or 81, 86 , 559 P2d 502 (1977) (“constructive knowledge” refers to a person “charged with knowledge that a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose” (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. Port of Portland
green
2 sentences2006See Forest Grove Brick v. Strickland, 277 Or 81, 86 , 559 P2d 502 (1977) (constructive knowledge imputed in circumstances where there is a duty of undertaking “a reasonably diligent inquiry’ that would have provided actual knowledge); Oregon Occupational Safety v. Port of Portland, 141 Or App 467, 473 , 918 P2d 448 (1996) (Constructive knowledge “referfs] to the extent to which information merely gives one reason to have known a fact, whether or not actual knowledge occurs.”) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 784 (5th ed 1979)). 2006See Forest Grove Brick v. Strickland, 277 Or 81, 86 , 559 P2d 502 (1977) (constructive knowledge imputed in circumstances where there is a duty of undertaking “a reasonably diligent inquiry’ that would have provided actual knowledge); Oregon Occupational Safety v. Port of Portland, 141 Or App 467, 473 , 918 P2d 448 (1996) (Constructive knowledge “referfs] to the extent to which information merely gives one reason to have known a fact, whether or not actual knowledge occurs.”) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 784 (5th ed 1979)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Webb v. Stewart
green
1 sentence1979(Footnote omitted.) Under Webb , it was Publishers’ duty to at least inquire as to who had actual possession of the premises, and the consequence of a failure to make a reasonably diligent inquiry combined with the plaintiffs retaining possession would be to charge Publishers with constructive notice of plaintiffs’ claim, Webb v. Stewart, 255 Or at 534 , and thus vitiate its claim to be a bona fide purchaser. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
EHLER ET UX v. Portland Gas & Coke Co.
green
2 sentences1978Ehler et ux v. Portland Gas & Coke Co., 223 Or 28, 46 , 352 P2d 1102 , 353 P2d 864 (1960). 1978Ehler et ux v. Portland Gas & Coke Co., 223 Or 28, 46 , 352 P2d 1102 , 353 P2d 864 (1960). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.