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 1 courts 2021–2025 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wolff v. McDonnellgreen2 sentences2024See Wolff, 418 US at 566 (providing that due process permits an inmate to call witnesses in a prison disciplinary proceeding unless “permitting him to do so will * * * be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correc- tional goals”).11 Second, any deficit associated with a remote civil commitment hearing and any benefit from an in-person hearing are relevant to the second Mathews factor to the extent they increase or decrease the risk of an erroneous determination. 2024See Wolff, 418 US at 566 (providing that due process permits an inmate to call witnesses in a prison disciplinary proceeding unless “permitting him to do so will * * * be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals”).10 Second, any deficit associated with a remote civil commitment hearing and any benefit from an in-person hearing are relevant to the second Mathews factor to the extent they increase or decrease the risk of an erroneous determination. | 2 | 2 |
In the Matter of Gngreen2 sentences2024See 230 Or App at 256 . 2024See 230 Or App at 256 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. A. M.green2 sentences2025We addressed the same statutory arguments in State v. A. M., 333 Or App 453, 459-60 , 553 P3d 593 , adh’d to on recons, 335 Or App 320 , 558 P3d 75 (2024), and we determined that “ORS 426.095(1) does not expressly require an in-person hearing” and that a similar Presiding Judge order “supersede[d] the statutory authority on which appellant relies.” Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by holding the hearing at the courthouse and permitting remote testimony. 2025We addressed the same statutory arguments in State v. A. M., 333 Or App 453, 459-60 , 553 P3d 593 , adh’d to on recons, 335 Or App 320 , 558 P3d 75 (2024), and we determined that “ORS 426.095(1) does not expressly require an in-person hearing” and that a similar Presiding Judge order “supersede[d] the statutory authority on which appellant relies.” Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by holding the hearing at the courthouse and permitting remote testimony. | 1 | 10 |
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2024The primary question that appel- lant has raised on appeal is whether due process requires an in-person civil commitment hearing in the absence of a particularized reason for proceeding remotely.1 Under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335 , 96 S Ct 893 , 47 L Ed 2d 18 (1976), the answer to that question turns on three fac- tors: the private interest at stake, the degree to which an in-person hearing would result in a more accurate determi- nation, and the burden on the government of providing an in-person hearing. 2024The primary question that appel- lant has raised on appeal is whether due process requires an in-person civil commitment hearing in the absence of a particularized reason for proceeding remotely.1 Under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335 , 96 S Ct 893 , 47 L Ed 2d 18 (1976), the answer to that question turns on three fac- tors: the private interest at stake, the degree to which an in-person hearing would result in a more accurate determi- nation, and the burden on the government of providing an in-person hearing. | 1 | 6 |
Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitzgreen2 sentences2021See Board of Curators of University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 US 78, 90 , 98 S Ct 948 , 55 L Ed 2d 124 (1978) (declining to require in-person hearings for academic dismissal cases given the reviewable academic information available to administra- tors); Mathews, 424 US at 343-44 (no hearing required where “issues of witness credibility and veracity” were not central to the agency’s decision); cf. Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 331 Or 362, 380 , 15 P3d 548 (2000) (“[W]hen, as here, the decision-maker must resolve factual disputes involving credibility and veracity, due process requi 2021See Board of Curators of University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 US 78, 90 , 98 S Ct 948 , 55 L Ed 2d 124 (1978) (declining to require in-person hearings for academic dismissal cases given the reviewable academic information available to administra- tors); Mathews, 424 US at 343-44 (no hearing required where “issues of witness credibility and veracity” were not central to the agency’s decision); cf. Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 331 Or 362, 380 , 15 P3d 548 (2000) (“[W]hen, as here, the decision-maker must resolve factual disputes involving credibility and veracity, due process requi | 1 | 1 |
Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2021See Board of Curators of University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 US 78, 90 , 98 S Ct 948 , 55 L Ed 2d 124 (1978) (declining to require in-person hearings for academic dismissal cases given the reviewable academic information available to administra- tors); Mathews, 424 US at 343-44 (no hearing required where “issues of witness credibility and veracity” were not central to the agency’s decision); cf. Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 331 Or 362, 380 , 15 P3d 548 (2000) (“[W]hen, as here, the decision-maker must resolve factual disputes involving credibility and veracity, due process requi 2021See Board of Curators of University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 US 78, 90 , 98 S Ct 948 , 55 L Ed 2d 124 (1978) (declining to require in-person hearings for academic dismissal cases given the reviewable academic information available to administra- tors); Mathews, 424 US at 343-44 (no hearing required where “issues of witness credibility and veracity” were not central to the agency’s decision); cf. Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 331 Or 362, 380 , 15 P3d 548 (2000) (“[W]hen, as here, the decision-maker must resolve factual disputes involving credibility and veracity, due process requi | 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. A. M.
green
2 sentences2025We addressed the same statutory arguments in State v. A. M., 333 Or App 453, 459-60 , 553 P3d 593 , adh’d to on recons, 335 Or App 320 , 558 P3d 75 (2024), and we determined that “ORS 426.095(1) does not expressly require an in-person hearing” and that a similar Presiding Judge order “supersede[d] the statutory authority on which appellant relies.” Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by holding the hearing at the courthouse and permitting remote testimony. 2025We addressed the same statutory arguments in State v. A. M., 333 Or App 453, 459-60 , 553 P3d 593 , adh’d to on recons, 335 Or App 320 , 558 P3d 75 (2024), and we determined that “ORS 426.095(1) does not expressly require an in-person hearing” and that a similar Presiding Judge order “supersede[d] the statutory authority on which appellant relies.” Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by holding the hearing at the courthouse and permitting remote testimony. | 5 | 2024–2025 |
Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. Doe
green
2 sentences2024Heller v. Doe, 509 US 312, 332 , 113 S Ct 2637 , 125 L Ed 2d 257 (1993) (concluding that, even if allowing parents and guardians to participate in a commitment pro- ceeding increased the likelihood of commitment, those per- sons’ participation in the hearing did not increase the risk of an inaccurate determination and thus did not bear on the second Mathews factor). 2024Heller v. Doe, 509 US 312, 332 , 113 S Ct 2637 , 125 L Ed 2d 257 (1993) (concluding that, even if allowing parents and guardians to participate in a commitment pro- ceeding increased the likelihood of commitment, those per- sons’ participation in the hearing did not increase the risk of an inaccurate determination and thus did not bear on the second Mathews factor). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
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.