11 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2025We remanded the case so that the parties could submit evidence, and the trial court could “balance the three Mathews factors and deter- mine whether due process requires an in-person commit- ment hearing.” Id. at 467 . 2025We remanded the case so that the parties could submit evidence, and the trial court could “balance the three Mathews factors and deter- mine whether due process requires an in-person commit- ment hearing.” Id. at 467 . | 2 | 6 |
Department of Human Services v. J. M.green2 sentences2026M., 266 Or App at 459-63 (applying Mathews factors to parents’ claim of due process violation related to evidentiary issues); Dept. of Human Services v. W. 2026M., 266 Or App at 459-63 (applying Mathews factors to parents’ claim of due process violation related to evidentiary issues); Dept. of Human Services v. W. | 2 | 2 |
Wright v. Californiagreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Colby v. Thompson, 183 Or App 311 , 52 P3d 1058 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 180 , cert den, 539 US 948 (2003). 3 Neither petitioner nor the board makes any specific arguments under the Mathews factors. 2006See, e.g., Colby v. Thompson, 183 Or App 311 , 52 P3d 1058 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 180 , cert den, 539 US 948 (2003). 3 Neither petitioner nor the board makes any specific arguments under the Mathews factors. | 1 | 1 |
Colby v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Colby v. Thompson, 183 Or App 311 , 52 P3d 1058 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 180 , cert den, 539 US 948 (2003). 3 Neither petitioner nor the board makes any specific arguments under the Mathews factors. 2006See, e.g., Colby v. Thompson, 183 Or App 311 , 52 P3d 1058 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 180 , cert den, 539 US 948 (2003). 3 Neither petitioner nor the board makes any specific arguments under the Mathews factors. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Department of Human Services v. W. S. C.
neutral
2 sentences2026S. C., 248 Or App 374 , 386- 390, 273 P3d 313 , rev den, 352 Or 341 (2012) (evaluating Cite as 348 Or App 481 (2026) 491 Mathews factors in deciding whether a statute dictating appellate timelines provided a parent with due process). 2026S. C., 248 Or App 374 , 386- 390, 273 P3d 313 , rev den, 352 Or 341 (2012) (evaluating Cite as 348 Or App 481 (2026) 491 Mathews factors in deciding whether a statute dictating appellate timelines provided a parent with due process). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10843281
neutral
2 sentences2026S. C., 248 Or App 374 , 386- 390, 273 P3d 313 , rev den, 352 Or 341 (2012) (evaluating Cite as 348 Or App 481 (2026) 491 Mathews factors in deciding whether a statute dictating appellate timelines provided a parent with due process). 2026S. C., 248 Or App 374 , 386- 390, 273 P3d 313 , rev den, 352 Or 341 (2012) (evaluating Cite as 348 Or App 481 (2026) 491 Mathews factors in deciding whether a statute dictating appellate timelines provided a parent with due process). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
State v. V. L. B.
neutral
2 sentences2025Nonprecedential Memo Op: 340 Or App 119 (2025) 123 Here, the procedural facts are very similar to those in A. M. 2025Nonprecedential Memo Op: 340 Or App 119 (2025) 123 Here, the procedural facts are very similar to those in A. M. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Addington v. Texas
green
2 sentences2024She notes initially that, after balancing the three Mathews factors, the Court held in Addington v. Texas, 441 US 418, 433 , 99 S Ct 1804 , 60 L Ed 2d 323 (1979), that due process requires greater procedural protections for persons facing civil commitment than the procedural protections that ordi- narily apply in civil cases. 2024She notes initially that, after balancing the three Mathews factors, the Court held in Addington v. Texas, 441 US 418, 433 , 99 S Ct 1804 , 60 L Ed 2d 323 (1979), that due process requires greater procedural protections for persons facing civil commitment than the procedural protections that ordi- narily apply in civil cases. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000Koskela, 159 Or App at 235 ; see Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335 , 96 S Ct 893 , 47 L Ed 2d 18 (1976) (identifying three-factor test in due process challenges, hereafter “Mathews factors”). 2000It then held that “due process principles do not entitle a claimant [seeking PTD benefits] to present evidence through in-hearing testimony rather than through written reports and sworn affidavits.” Koskela, 159 Or App at 251 . | 2 | 1999–2000 |
Doe v. Gallinot
green
2 sentences1993Adoption of mandatory review procedures, therefore, promises to effect a reduction in erroneous certifications." 657 F.2d at 1023 . 1993Adoption of mandatory review procedures, therefore, promises to effect a reduction in erroneous certifications." 657 F.2d at 1023 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.