11 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bowles v. Millergreen1 sentence2015Equity, at least as it is exercised under the doctrine of reformation, has no role in remedying the parties’ mistaken prediction of court decisions. 4 See also McGinley Corporation v. Lido Oil Co., 71 F2d 81, 82 (5th Cir 1934) (“Mistake as to what courts may hold in the future on a pending appeal fur- nishes no ground for setting aside or reforming a contract which at the time it was entered into correctly expressed the intention of the parties to it.”); Rector v. Collins, 46 Ark 167, 175 (1885) (“Though the court will rectify an instrument which fails through some mistake of the draftsman in | 1 | 1 |
Rector v. Collinsgreen1 sentence2015Equity, at least as it is exercised under the doctrine of reformation, has no role in remedying the parties’ mistaken prediction of court decisions. 4 See also McGinley Corporation v. Lido Oil Co., 71 F2d 81, 82 (5th Cir 1934) (“Mistake as to what courts may hold in the future on a pending appeal fur- nishes no ground for setting aside or reforming a contract which at the time it was entered into correctly expressed the intention of the parties to it.”); Rector v. Collins, 46 Ark 167, 175 (1885) (“Though the court will rectify an instrument which fails through some mistake of the draftsman in | 1 | 1 |
Pearson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Co. v. Galloway, 168 Iowa 550 , 150 NW 710 , 713 (1915) (“[E]quity will not reform a mistake of law as to the legal effect of a contract actually made.”); Ingram Day Lumber Co. v. Robertson, 129 Miss 365, 92 So 289, 291-92 (1922) (“[T]hat the parties may have been mistaken as to its legal effect * * * is no ground for equitable relief.”); Cardinal Partners, LLC, Desco Investment Co, LLC, 301 SW3d 104, 110 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (“If an agreement is what the parties intended, equity will not inter- fere because the parties did not intend its legal effect.”); Friedman v. Platzik, 57 NYS2d 215 , 218 | 1 | 1 |
Good Milking Machine Co. v. Gallowaygreen1 sentence2015Co. v. Galloway, 168 Iowa 550 , 150 NW 710 , 713 (1915) (“[E]quity will not reform a mistake of law as to the legal effect of a contract actually made.”); Ingram Day Lumber Co. v. Robertson, 129 Miss 365, 92 So 289, 291-92 (1922) (“[T]hat the parties may have been mistaken as to its legal effect * * * is no ground for equitable relief.”); Cardinal Partners, LLC, Desco Investment Co, LLC, 301 SW3d 104, 110 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (“If an agreement is what the parties intended, equity will not inter- fere because the parties did not intend its legal effect.”); Friedman v. Platzik, 57 NYS2d 215 , 218 | 1 | 1 |
Black v. Arizalagreen2 sentences2014See Black v. Arizala, 337 Or 250, 266 , 95 P3d 1109 (2004) (“ORCP 21 A(l) authorizes Oregon courts to dismiss an action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter when *** the record demonstrates that the parties have an enforceable agreement to litigate the action in a different venue.”). 2014See Black, 337 Or at 265 ; ORCP 21 A. Thus, under the circumstances here, the court erred when it granted the motion to dismiss the reformation claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and we must remand on that issue. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kruchekgreen1 sentence2014See Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 659-60 , 20 P3d 180 (2001) (describing “right for the wrong” reason principle). | 1 | 1 |
Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 659-60 , 20 P3d 180 (2001) (describing “right for the wrong” reason principle). | 1 | 1 |
Van Vonno v. Hertz Corporationgreen1 sentence1999However, that case does not engage in a classic reformation analysis; instead, the single reference to “reformed” appears to have been merely shorthand for the imputation of coverage. 6 Cf. Van Vonno v. Hertz Corp., 120 Wash 2d 416, 841 P2d 1244, 1247 (1992) (applying Oregon law: “The remedy for failure to comply with ORS 742.502(2) is reformation of the insurance contract to include uninsured motorist coverage up to the same limits as the liability protection.”). | 1 | 1 |
Norris v. Cuppgreen1 sentence1996See also Norris, 67 Or App at 397-98 (“Article I, section 15, does not require that a sentencing statute provide that all of the circumstances of the individual and the crime be taken into account”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
A&T Siding, Inc. v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp.
green
2 sentences2019However, that case did not address, explain, or apply the "gross negligence" requirement because the issue there was a mistake about the legal effect of a contract term, as to which the "equitable remedy of reformation is not available." 358 Or. at 47 , 359 P.3d 1178 . 2019However, that case did not address, explain, or apply the "gross negligence" requirement because the issue there was a mistake about the legal effect of a contract term, as to which the "equitable remedy of reformation is not available." 358 Or. at 47 , 359 P.3d 1178 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Lawler
green
2 sentences1996We considered and rejected defendant’s arguments that Measure 11 violated the separation of powers provisions of Article III, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution and the reformation requirement of Article I, section 15, in State v. Lawler, 144 Or App 456 , 927 P2d 99 (1996), and State v. Jackson/Hoang, 145 Or App 27 , 929 P2d 323 (1996). 1996We considered and rejected defendant’s arguments that Measure 11 violated the separation of powers provisions of Article III, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution and the reformation requirement of Article I, section 15, in State v. Lawler, 144 Or App 456 , 927 P2d 99 (1996), and State v. Jackson/Hoang, 145 Or App 27 , 929 P2d 323 (1996). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences1996We considered and rejected defendant’s arguments that Measure 11 violated the separation of powers provisions of Article III, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution and the reformation requirement of Article I, section 15, in State v. Lawler, 144 Or App 456 , 927 P2d 99 (1996), and State v. Jackson/Hoang, 145 Or App 27 , 929 P2d 323 (1996). 1996We considered and rejected defendant’s arguments that Measure 11 violated the separation of powers provisions of Article III, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution and the reformation requirement of Article I, section 15, in State v. Lawler, 144 Or App 456 , 927 P2d 99 (1996), and State v. Jackson/Hoang, 145 Or App 27 , 929 P2d 323 (1996). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
King v. Talcott
green
1 sentence1988On the claim of an implied easement, we stated that “we do not believe that the legislature intended the phrase ‘an action or suit on a contract’ [found in the reciprocal attorney fees statute, ORS 20.096(1)] to include every claim in an action in which a contract is involved.” 80 Or App at 706 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Ensley v. Fitzwater
green
2 sentences1986Affirmed on appeal; on cross-appeal, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for award of attorney fees on the reformation claim only. 1 This document was labeled “Judgment Order.” The Oregon Supreme Court has stated: “The term ‘judgment order’ has no meaning and should not be used. ‘Judgment’ and ‘order’ are two separate terms and have different meanings.” Ensley v. Fitzwater, 293 Or 158 , 162 n 2, 645 P2d 1062 (1982). 2 The court held: “[A] vendee who, after an unavailing notice to his vendor, unsuccessfully defends the title that has been warranted to him is entitled to recover from 1986Affirmed on appeal; on cross-appeal, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for award of attorney fees on the reformation claim only. 1 This document was labeled “Judgment Order.” The Oregon Supreme Court has stated: “The term ‘judgment order’ has no meaning and should not be used. ‘Judgment’ and ‘order’ are two separate terms and have different meanings.” Ensley v. Fitzwater, 293 Or 158 , 162 n 2, 645 P2d 1062 (1982). 2 The court held: “[A] vendee who, after an unavailing notice to his vendor, unsuccessfully defends the title that has been warranted to him is entitled to recover from | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Ellis v. Abbott
green
1 sentence1986Affirmed on appeal; on cross-appeal, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for award of attorney fees on the reformation claim only. 1 This document was labeled “Judgment Order.” The Oregon Supreme Court has stated: “The term ‘judgment order’ has no meaning and should not be used. ‘Judgment’ and ‘order’ are two separate terms and have different meanings.” Ensley v. Fitzwater, 293 Or 158 , 162 n 2, 645 P2d 1062 (1982). 2 The court held: “[A] vendee who, after an unavailing notice to his vendor, unsuccessfully defends the title that has been warranted to him is entitled to recover from | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Roberts v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences1981It treats all persons convicted of a designated offense not as uniquely individual human beings, but as members of a faceless, undifferentiated mass to be subjected to the blind infliction of the penalty of death.” Accord: Lockett v. Ohio, 438 US 586, 602-05 , 98 S Ct 2954 , 57 L Ed 2d 973 (1978); Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 US 633, 641 , 97 S Ct 1993 , 52 L Ed 2d 637 (1977); Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 US 325, 332-34 , 96 S Ct 3001 , 49 L Ed 2d 974 (1976). 1981It treats all persons convicted of a designated offense not as uniquely individual human beings, but as members of a faceless, undifferentiated mass to be subjected to the blind infliction of the penalty of death.” Accord: Lockett v. Ohio, 438 US 586, 602-05 , 98 S Ct 2954 , 57 L Ed 2d 973 (1978); Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 US 633, 641 , 97 S Ct 1993 , 52 L Ed 2d 637 (1977); Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 US 325, 332-34 , 96 S Ct 3001 , 49 L Ed 2d 974 (1976). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Roberts v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences1981It treats all persons convicted of a designated offense not as uniquely individual human beings, but as members of a faceless, undifferentiated mass to be subjected to the blind infliction of the penalty of death.” Accord: Lockett v. Ohio, 438 US 586, 602-05 , 98 S Ct 2954 , 57 L Ed 2d 973 (1978); Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 US 633, 641 , 97 S Ct 1993 , 52 L Ed 2d 637 (1977); Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 US 325, 332-34 , 96 S Ct 3001 , 49 L Ed 2d 974 (1976). 1981It treats all persons convicted of a designated offense not as uniquely individual human beings, but as members of a faceless, undifferentiated mass to be subjected to the blind infliction of the penalty of death.” Accord: Lockett v. Ohio, 438 US 586, 602-05 , 98 S Ct 2954 , 57 L Ed 2d 973 (1978); Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 US 633, 641 , 97 S Ct 1993 , 52 L Ed 2d 637 (1977); Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 US 325, 332-34 , 96 S Ct 3001 , 49 L Ed 2d 974 (1976). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Lockett v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1981It treats all persons convicted of a designated offense not as uniquely individual human beings, but as members of a faceless, undifferentiated mass to be subjected to the blind infliction of the penalty of death.” Accord: Lockett v. Ohio, 438 US 586, 602-05 , 98 S Ct 2954 , 57 L Ed 2d 973 (1978); Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 US 633, 641 , 97 S Ct 1993 , 52 L Ed 2d 637 (1977); Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 US 325, 332-34 , 96 S Ct 3001 , 49 L Ed 2d 974 (1976). 1981It treats all persons convicted of a designated offense not as uniquely individual human beings, but as members of a faceless, undifferentiated mass to be subjected to the blind infliction of the penalty of death.” Accord: Lockett v. Ohio, 438 US 586, 602-05 , 98 S Ct 2954 , 57 L Ed 2d 973 (1978); Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 US 633, 641 , 97 S Ct 1993 , 52 L Ed 2d 637 (1977); Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 US 325, 332-34 , 96 S Ct 3001 , 49 L Ed 2d 974 (1976). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Tuel v. Gladden
green
2 sentences1981Art I, § 15, of the constitution provides: *995 "Laws for the punishment of crime shall be founded on the principles of reformation and not of vindictive justice.” In Tuel v. Gladden, 234 Or 1 , 379 P2d 553 (1963), the court considered a challenge to the habitual criminal law based on the same clause. 1981Art I, § 15, of the constitution provides: *995 "Laws for the punishment of crime shall be founded on the principles of reformation and not of vindictive justice.” In Tuel v. Gladden, 234 Or 1 , 379 P2d 553 (1963), the court considered a challenge to the habitual criminal law based on the same clause. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Woodson v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences1981In Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 US 280, 304 , 96 S Ct 2978 , 49 L Ed 2d 944 (1976), that court stated a rationale which is similar in some ways to our discussion of the reformation clause: “* * * A process that accords no significance to relevant facets of the character and record of the individual offender or the circumstances of the particular offense excludes from consideration in fixing the ultimate punishment of death the possibility of compassionate or mitigating factors stemming from the diverse frailties of humankind. 1981In Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 US 280, 304 , 96 S Ct 2978 , 49 L Ed 2d 944 (1976), that court stated a rationale which is similar in some ways to our discussion of the reformation clause: “* * * A process that accords no significance to relevant facets of the character and record of the individual offender or the circumstances of the particular offense excludes from consideration in fixing the ultimate punishment of death the possibility of compassionate or mitigating factors stemming from the diverse frailties of humankind. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Lewis v. Miller
green
1 sentence1971The court also pointed out that “each of the *135 three separately stated causes is related to and springs from the same contract between the same parties.” 197 Or at 359 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.