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 1910–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gainesgreen2 sentences2017See State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009) (explaining that text and context “must be given primary weight” in determining the intended meaning of a statute); Duvall v. McLeod, 331 Or 675, 679 , 21 P3d 88 (2001) (interpreting a rule of civil procedure by first considering text of rule). 2017See State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009) (explaining that text and context “must be given primary weight” in determining the intended meaning of a statute); Duvall v. McLeod, 331 Or 675, 679 , 21 P3d 88 (2001) (interpreting a rule of civil procedure by first considering text of rule). | 1 | 1 |
Alanis v. Barrett Business Servicesgreen2 sentences2006See Alanis v. Barrett Business Services, 179 Or.App. 79, 82 , 39 P.3d 880 (2002) (holding that in construing an administrative rule, we apply the same analytical framework applicable to the interpretation of statutes). 2006See Alanis v. Barrett Business Services, 179 Or.App. 79, 82 , 39 P.3d 880 (2002) (holding that in construing an administrative rule, we apply the same analytical framework applicable to the interpretation of statutes). | 1 | 1 |
Crow v. Abrahamgreen2 sentences1935A cause of suit consists of two factors: (1) The plaintiff’s primary right and the defendant’s corresponding primary duty; and (2) the delict or wrongful act or omission of the defendant by which the primary right and duty have been violated: Pomeroy’s Remedies and Remedial Rights, § 519, cited in Crow v. Abraham, 86 Or. 99, 106 ( 167 P. 590 ). 1935A cause of suit consists of two factors: (1) The plaintiff’s primary right and the defendant’s corresponding primary duty; and (2) the delict or wrongful act or omission of the defendant by which the primary right and duty have been violated: Pomeroy’s Remedies and Remedial Rights, § 519, cited in Crow v. Abraham, 86 Or. 99, 106 ( 167 P. 590 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tye v. McFetridge
green
2 sentences2011Unless defined otherwise in the rule, we give the words of the rule their ordinary meanings.” Id. 2011Unless defined otherwise in the rule, we give the words of the rule their ordinary meanings." Id. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
OR-OSHA v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021Cite as 312 Or App 424 (2021) 437 subparagraph (c)(4)(i), which provides: “Projecting shaft ends * * * shall not project more than one-half the diameter of the shaft unless guarded by nonrotating caps or safety sleeves.” The key words in the rule have straightforward meanings. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Marshall's Towing v. Department of State Police
green
1 sentence2017Marshall’s Towing, 339 Or at 64 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Duvall v. McLeod
green
2 sentences2017See State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009) (explaining that text and context “must be given primary weight” in determining the intended meaning of a statute); Duvall v. McLeod, 331 Or 675, 679 , 21 P3d 88 (2001) (interpreting a rule of civil procedure by first considering text of rule). 2017See State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009) (explaining that text and context “must be given primary weight” in determining the intended meaning of a statute); Duvall v. McLeod, 331 Or 675, 679 , 21 P3d 88 (2001) (interpreting a rule of civil procedure by first considering text of rule). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Rains v. Stayton Builders Mart, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017Unless the legislature subsequently amends a rule of civil procedure, our task “is to discern the intent of the Council on Court Procedures, which promulgates the rules.” Id. 7 The words of the rule, along with its context, are the best evidence of its meaning. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Benavente v. Thayer
green
1 sentence2017"The words of the rule, along with its context, are the best evidence of its meaning." Id . at 154, 395 P.3d 914 . *613 We begin with ORCP 69 B: "(1) For the purposes of avoiding a default, a party may provide written notice of intent to file an appearance to a plaintiff, counterclaimant, or cross-claimant. "(2) If the party against whom an order of default is sought has filed an appearance in the action, or has provided written notice of intent to file an appearance, then notice of the intent to apply for an order of default must be filed and served at least 10 days, unless shortened by the c | 1 | 2017–2017 |
ETU, Inc. v. Environmental Quality Commission
green
1 sentence2007Applying that standard, the court held that “DEQ’s interpretation of its rule is plausible.” ETU, 205 Or App at 294-95 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Osborn v. Psychiatric Security Review Board
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 145-46 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Lee v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1999Although “claim” and “transaction” may now have broader meanings than they did 50 years ago, see Lee v. Mitchell, 152 Or App 159, 165-66 , 953 P2d 414 (1998), they still require a connected set of operative facts that are related in time and space. 1999Although “claim” and “transaction” may now have broader meanings than they did 50 years ago, see Lee v. Mitchell, 152 Or App 159, 165-66 , 953 P2d 414 (1998), they still require a connected set of operative facts that are related in time and space. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Ex parte Kameta
green
2 sentences1973In Ex Parte Kameta, 36 Or 251 , 60 P 394 , 78 Am St R 775 (1900), the court held that'an ordinance that made possession of a lottery ticket a crime unless the defendant produced evidence that his possession was lawful was unconstitutional because it assumed to *201 overthrow the presumption of innocence. 1973In Ex Parte Kameta, 36 Or 251 , 60 P 394 , 78 Am St R 775 (1900), the court held that'an ordinance that made possession of a lottery ticket a crime unless the defendant produced evidence that his possession was lawful was unconstitutional because it assumed to *201 overthrow the presumption of innocence. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Grant County v. Lake County
green
1 sentence1910It was early held by this court in the case of Grant County v. Lake County, 17 Or. 458 ( 21 Pac. 447 ), that where the debt in question was not created by the county, but the liability was imposed by the legislature, it was not within the prohibition. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.