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 1958–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Guardian Industries Corp. v. National Labor Relations Boardgreen1 sentence2006A person making a claim of discrimination must identify another case that has been treated differently and explain why that case is ‘the same’ in the respects the law deems relevant or permissible as grounds of action. * * * [I]t is hard to see why allowing employees to tell each other about cribs that have been outgrown implies that the employer must dedicate space to the union’s organizational notices.” Guardian Industries Corp., 49 F3d at 319 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
Merry Queen Transfer Corp. v. O'Rourkegreen1 sentence1990Moreover, ORCP 71A is patterned on FRCP 60(a), which has been interpreted by federal courts in a manner similar to the interpretation Oregon adopted in Hubbard : “ ‘[A “clerical error” under Rule 60(a)] is a type of mistake or omission mechanical in nature which is apparent on the record and which does not involve a legal decision or judgment by an attorney.’ ” U.S. v. Kenner, 455 F2d 1, 6 (7th Cir 1972), quoting In re Merry Queen Transfer Corp., D.C., 266 F Supp 605, 607 (EDNY 1967). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hubbard v. Hubbard
green
2 sentences2004In other words, the distinction does not depend so much upon the person making the error as upon whether it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination, regardless of whether it was made by the clerk, by counsel or by the judge.’ ” 213 Or at 487-88 , quoting 1 Freeman, Judgments 284, § 146 (5th ed 1925). 2002In other words, the distinction does not depend so much upon the person making the error as upon whether it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination, regardless of whether it was made by the clerk, by counsel or by the judge.'" Hubbard v. Hubbard, 213 Or. 482, 487-88 , 324 P.2d 469 (1958) (quoting Freeman, 1 Judgments § 146, at 284 (5th ed. 1925)). | 4 | 1982–2004 |
Perkins v. Fhuere
neutral
2 sentences2025The Court went so far as to state that a person making such a claim “cannot, Cite as 374 Or 575 (2025) 587 of course, contend that mere recantation of testimony is in itself ground for invoking the Due Process Clause against a conviction.” Id. 2025The Court went so far as to state that a person making such a claim “cannot, Cite as 374 Or 575 (2025) 587 of course, contend that mere recantation of testimony is in itself ground for invoking the Due Process Clause against a conviction.” Id. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Daugharty v. Gladden
green
2 sentences1994In other words, the distinction does not depend so much upon the person making the error as upon whether it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination, regardless of whether it was made by the clerk, by counsel or by the judge.’ ” Daugharty v. Gladden, 217 Or 567, 577 , 341 P2d 1069 , cert den 361 US 867 (1959) (quoting 1 Freeman, Judgments 284, § 146 (5th ed)). 1994In other words, the distinction does not depend so much upon the person making the error as upon whether it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination, regardless of whether it was made by the clerk, by counsel or by the judge.’ ” Daugharty v. Gladden, 217 Or 567, 577 , 341 P2d 1069 , cert den 361 US 867 (1959) (quoting 1 Freeman, Judgments 284, § 146 (5th ed)). | 2 | 1985–1994 |
Leggett v. Henslee
green
1 sentence1994In other words, the distinction does not depend so much upon the person making the error as upon whether it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination, regardless of whether it was made by the clerk, by counsel or by the judge.'" Daugharty v. Gladden, 217 Or. 567, 577 , 341 P.2d 1069 , cert. den. 361 U.S. 867 , 80 S.Ct. 128 , 4 L.Ed.2d 106 (1959) (quoting 1 Freeman, Judgments 284, § 146 (5th ed)). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Wilson v. Smyth
green
2 sentences1994In other words, the distinction does not depend so much upon the person making the error as upon whether it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination, regardless of whether it was made by the clerk, by counsel or by the judge.’ ” Daugharty v. Gladden, 217 Or 567, 577 , 341 P2d 1069 , cert den 361 US 867 (1959) (quoting 1 Freeman, Judgments 284, § 146 (5th ed)). 1994In other words, the distinction does not depend so much upon the person making the error as upon whether it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination, regardless of whether it was made by the clerk, by counsel or by the judge.'" Daugharty v. Gladden, 217 Or. 567, 577 , 341 P.2d 1069 , cert. den. 361 U.S. 867 , 80 S.Ct. 128 , 4 L.Ed.2d 106 (1959) (quoting 1 Freeman, Judgments 284, § 146 (5th ed)). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Ben Rybke Co. v. Royal Globe Insurance
green
2 sentences1990If the words in the statute were not themselves clear on that point, the legislative history quoted in Duncan effectively demonstrates that the legislation was designed with only the insurer third-party situation in mind. * * * * * * * “We hold that the payments made by the insurers here are not subject to the provisions of ORS 12.155.” 55 Or App at 839 . 1990If the words in the statute were not themselves clear on that point, the legislative history quoted in Duncan effectively demonstrates that the legislation was designed with only the insurer third-party situation in mind. * * * "* * * * * "We hold that the payments made by the insurers here are not subject to the provisions of ORS 12.155." 55 Or. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Grover v. Hawthorne
green
1 sentence1958It has been said by this court that “orders made mono pro tunc, correcting or amending the record, will very seldom be disturbed by an appellate court, and never, except for an abuse of discretion or absolute want of authority to make them.” Grover v. Hawthorne, supra, 62 Or at 68 and 76. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.