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.
11 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Heino v. Harpergreen2 sentences1999For example, Heino v. Harper, 306 Or 347 , 759 P2d 253 (1988), called that passage in G.L. “the rule concerning reconsideration of a court-created rule or doctrine.” Heino, 306 Or at 373 (emphasis added). 1999For example, Heino v. Harper, 306 Or 347 , 759 P2d 253 (1988), called that passage in G.L. “the rule concerning reconsideration of a court-created rule or doctrine.” Heino, 306 Or at 373 (emphasis added). | 3 | 4 |
G. L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc.green2 sentences1998This court will reconsider a court-created rule or doctrine if “surrounding statutory law or regulations have altered some essential legal element assumed in the earlier case.” G.L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., 306 Or 54, 59 , 757 P2d 1347 (1988) (setting out other circumstances as well). 1998This court will reconsider a court-created rule or doctrine if “surrounding statutory law or regulations have altered some essential legal element assumed in the earlier case.” G.L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., 306 Or 54, 59 , 757 P2d 1347 (1988) (setting out other circumstances as well). | 1 | 3 |
Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestrygreen2 sentences2003Perla Development Co. v. Pacificorp, 82 Or.App. 50 , 53 n. 1, 727 P.2d 149 (1986), rev. den., 303 Or. 74 , 734 P.2d 354 (1987); see also Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 325 Or. 185, 191-93 , 935 P.2d 411 (1997); Reinwald v. Dept. of Employment, 148 Or.App. 75, 81 , 939 P.2d 86 (1997). 2003Perla Development Co. v. Pacificorp, 82 Or.App. 50 , 53 n. 1, 727 P.2d 149 (1986), rev. den., 303 Or. 74 , 734 P.2d 354 (1987); see also Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 325 Or. 185, 191-93 , 935 P.2d 411 (1997); Reinwald v. Dept. of Employment, 148 Or.App. 75, 81 , 939 P.2d 86 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Noonan v. City of Portlandgreen2 sentences1990See Noonan v. City of Portland, 161 Or. 213, 239-40 , 88 P.2d 808 (1939) (courts ought not overrule announced controlling principles of law unless they are "manifestly wrong"). [4] In G.L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., 306 Or. 54, 59 , 757 P.2d 1347 (1988), this court summarized the rule concerning reconsideration of a court-created doctrine as follows: "Ordinarily this court reconsiders a nonstatutory rule or doctrine upon one of three premises: (1) that an earlier case was inadequately considered or wrong when it was decided; (2) that surrounding statutory law or regulations have alt 1990See Noonan v. City of Portland, 161 Or. 213, 239-40 , 88 P.2d 808 (1939) (courts ought not overrule announced controlling principles of law unless they are "manifestly wrong"). [4] In G.L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., 306 Or. 54, 59 , 757 P.2d 1347 (1988), this court summarized the rule concerning reconsideration of a court-created doctrine as follows: "Ordinarily this court reconsiders a nonstatutory rule or doctrine upon one of three premises: (1) that an earlier case was inadequately considered or wrong when it was decided; (2) that surrounding statutory law or regulations have alt | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dahl v. Bayerische Motoren Werke
green
2 sentences1988Finally, in G.L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., 306 Or 54, 59 , 757 P2d 1347 (1988), this court summarized the rule concerning reconsideration of a court-created rule or doctrine as follows: “Ordinarily this court reconsiders a nonstatutory rule or doctrine upon one of three premises: (1) that an earlier case was inadequately considered or wrong when it was decided, see, e.g., Winn v. Gilroy, 296 Or 718 , 681 P2d 776 (1984) (reconsidering parental immunity); (2) that surrounding statutory law or regulations have altered some essential legal element assumed in the earlier case, see, e.g. 1988Finally, in G.L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., 306 Or 54, 59 , 757 P2d 1347 (1988), this court summarized the rule concerning reconsideration of a court-created rule or doctrine as follows: “Ordinarily this court reconsiders a nonstatutory rule or doctrine upon one of three premises: (1) that an earlier case was inadequately considered or wrong when it was decided, see, e.g., Winn v. Gilroy, 296 Or 718 , 681 P2d 776 (1984) (reconsidering parental immunity); (2) that surrounding statutory law or regulations have altered some essential legal element assumed in the earlier case, see, e.g. | 2 | 1988–1998 |
United States v. Leon
green
2 sentences2022The “good faith” doctrine was first rec- ognized in United States v. Leon, 468 US 897 , 104 S Ct 3405 , 82 L Ed 2d 677 (1984), regarding an invalid search warrant. 2022The “good faith” doctrine was first rec- ognized in United States v. Leon, 468 US 897 , 104 S Ct 3405 , 82 L Ed 2d 677 (1984), regarding an invalid search warrant. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Barber
green
2 sentences2016In that case, the court held that the court-created factors for raising and preserving error must “be weighed against a constitutional provision specifying the only way that the right that the provision separately grants may be waived.” Id. at 530 . 2016Presented that way, “there is no contest.” Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
STATE EX REL. HUNTINGTON, ETC. v. Sulmonetti
neutral
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Matter of Marriage of McDonnal
green
2 sentences2004In 1982, this court acknowledged in McDonnal and McDonnal, 293 Or 772 , 652 P2d 1247 (1982), that the legislature’s modification statute still did not require a showing of changed circumstances. 7 That requirement, the McDonnal court noted, remained a court-created rule: “This statute, while granting the court the power to set aside, alter or modify the support provisions of a decree at any time after dissolution, does not specifically require a showing of changed circumstances. 2004In 1982, this court acknowledged in McDonnal and McDonnal, 293 Or 772 , 652 P2d 1247 (1982), that the legislature’s modification statute still did not require a showing of changed circumstances. 7 That requirement, the McDonnal court noted, remained a court-created rule: “This statute, while granting the court the power to set aside, alter or modify the support provisions of a decree at any time after dissolution, does not specifically require a showing of changed circumstances. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Reinwald v. STATE, DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT
green
2 sentences2003Perla Development Co. v. Pacificorp, 82 Or.App. 50 , 53 n. 1, 727 P.2d 149 (1986), rev. den., 303 Or. 74 , 734 P.2d 354 (1987); see also Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 325 Or. 185, 191-93 , 935 P.2d 411 (1997); Reinwald v. Dept. of Employment, 148 Or.App. 75, 81 , 939 P.2d 86 (1997). 2003Perla Development Co. v. Pacificorp, 82 Or.App. 50 , 53 n. 1, 727 P.2d 149 (1986), rev. den., 303 Or. 74 , 734 P.2d 354 (1987); see also Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 325 Or. 185, 191-93 , 935 P.2d 411 (1997); Reinwald v. Dept. of Employment, 148 Or.App. 75, 81 , 939 P.2d 86 (1997). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Perla Development Co. v. Pacificorp
green
2 sentences2003Perla Development Co. v. Pacificorp, 82 Or.App. 50 , 53 n. 1, 727 P.2d 149 (1986), rev. den., 303 Or. 74 , 734 P.2d 354 (1987); see also Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 325 Or. 185, 191-93 , 935 P.2d 411 (1997); Reinwald v. Dept. of Employment, 148 Or.App. 75, 81 , 939 P.2d 86 (1997). 2003Perla Development Co. v. Pacificorp, 82 Or.App. 50 , 53 n. 1, 727 P.2d 149 (1986), rev. den., 303 Or. 74 , 734 P.2d 354 (1987); see also Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 325 Or. 185, 191-93 , 935 P.2d 411 (1997); Reinwald v. Dept. of Employment, 148 Or.App. 75, 81 , 939 P.2d 86 (1997). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital
green
2 sentences1988Finally, in G.L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., 306 Or 54, 59 , 757 P2d 1347 (1988), this court summarized the rule concerning reconsideration of a court-created rule or doctrine as follows: “Ordinarily this court reconsiders a nonstatutory rule or doctrine upon one of three premises: (1) that an earlier case was inadequately considered or wrong when it was decided, see, e.g., Winn v. Gilroy, 296 Or 718 , 681 P2d 776 (1984) (reconsidering parental immunity); (2) that surrounding statutory law or regulations have altered some essential legal element assumed in the earlier case, see, e.g. 1988Finally, in G.L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., 306 Or 54, 59 , 757 P2d 1347 (1988), this court summarized the rule concerning reconsideration of a court-created rule or doctrine as follows: “Ordinarily this court reconsiders a nonstatutory rule or doctrine upon one of three premises: (1) that an earlier case was inadequately considered or wrong when it was decided, see, e.g., Winn v. Gilroy, 296 Or 718 , 681 P2d 776 (1984) (reconsidering parental immunity); (2) that surrounding statutory law or regulations have altered some essential legal element assumed in the earlier case, see, e.g. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Winn v. Gilroy
green
2 sentences1988Finally, in G.L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., 306 Or 54, 59 , 757 P2d 1347 (1988), this court summarized the rule concerning reconsideration of a court-created rule or doctrine as follows: “Ordinarily this court reconsiders a nonstatutory rule or doctrine upon one of three premises: (1) that an earlier case was inadequately considered or wrong when it was decided, see, e.g., Winn v. Gilroy, 296 Or 718 , 681 P2d 776 (1984) (reconsidering parental immunity); (2) that surrounding statutory law or regulations have altered some essential legal element assumed in the earlier case, see, e.g. 1988Finally, in G.L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., 306 Or 54, 59 , 757 P2d 1347 (1988), this court summarized the rule concerning reconsideration of a court-created rule or doctrine as follows: “Ordinarily this court reconsiders a nonstatutory rule or doctrine upon one of three premises: (1) that an earlier case was inadequately considered or wrong when it was decided, see, e.g., Winn v. Gilroy, 296 Or 718 , 681 P2d 776 (1984) (reconsidering parental immunity); (2) that surrounding statutory law or regulations have altered some essential legal element assumed in the earlier case, see, e.g. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.