repeated rule in Oregon

11 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2026 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Blockergreen or · 1981 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005The court narrowed its ultimate conclusion, however, to the particular circumstances of the case before it, specifically holding that Article I, section 27, protected defendant’s possession of billy clubs in his home. 14 641 In Blocker, 291 Or 255 , this court addressed a defendant’s challenge to the same statute at issue in Kessler , involving a conviction for possession outside the home of a weapon qualifying as a billy club. 15 The court repeated its analysis from Kessler regarding the premise that Article I, section 27, guaranteed the right of a person “to bear arms for defense of self’ a 2005*Id. at 258-59.	1	1
Dearborn v. Real Estate Agencygreen or · 2002 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004The court repeated that requirement later in the opinion: “We conclude that, under both subsections cited by the Commissioner as authority for his decision to revoke broker’s license, there must be a substantial relationship between the conduct at issue and a licensee’s real estate activities.” Id. at 502 (emphasis added).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (14)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Hamilton green orctapp · 2022 2 sentences 2026Id. at 805 . 2026Id. at 805 .	2	2026–2026
State v. Nix green orctapp · 2012 2 sentences 2014The state starts with the premise that, “although [animals] are property in the eyes of the law, they have a statutory right to basic care separate and apart from their owners’ possessory interests.” The state points to the state statutes criminalizing animal mistreatment and to this court’s determination that each animal identified in a count of animal neglect is a “victim” of that crime for purposes of ORS 161.067(2), which provides that, when a person’s repeated violation of a statute “involves two or more victims, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are victims.” See 2014The state starts with the premise that, “although [animals] are property in the eyes of the law, they have a statutory right to basic care separate and apart from their owners’ possessory interests.” The state points to the state statutes criminalizing animal mistreatment and to this court’s determination that each animal identified in a count of animal neglect is a “victim” of that crime for purposes of ORS 161.067(2), which provides that, when a person’s repeated violation of a statute “involves two or more victims, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are victims.” See	1	2014–2014
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Campbell green scotus · 2003 2 sentences 2011The Court repeated that exception in Campbell, directly quoting the Gore phrasing: "[R]atios greater than those we have previously upheld may comport with due process where `a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages.'" 538 U.S. at 425 , 123 S.Ct. 1513 (quoting Gore, 517 U.S. at 582 , 116 S.Ct. 1589 ). 2011The Court repeated that exception in Campbell , directly quoting the Gore phrasing: “[RJatios greater than those we have previously upheld may comport with due process where ‘a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages.’ ” 538 US at 425 (quoting Gore, 517 US at 582 ).	1	2011–2011
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore green scotus · 1996 2 sentences 2011The Court repeated that exception in Campbell, directly quoting the Gore phrasing: "[R]atios greater than those we have previously upheld may comport with due process where `a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages.'" 538 U.S. at 425 , 123 S.Ct. 1513 (quoting Gore, 517 U.S. at 582 , 116 S.Ct. 1589 ). 2011The Court repeated that exception in Campbell , directly quoting the Gore phrasing: “[RJatios greater than those we have previously upheld may comport with due process where ‘a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages.’ ” 538 US at 425 (quoting Gore, 517 US at 582 ).	1	2011–2011
State v. Keller green or · 1993 1 sentence 2010The court continued: “Furthermore, this rule applies whether the witness is testifying about the credibility of the other witness in relation to the latter’s testimony at trial or is testifying about the credibility of the other witness in relation to statements made by the latter on some other occasion or for some reason unrelated to the current litigation.” Id. at 284-85 .	1	2010–2010
Richards v. Dahl green or · 1980 1 sentence 2000In Richards v. Dahl, 289 Or 747, 752 , 618 P2d 418 (1980), decided in October 1980, this court repeated the rule found in those earlier decisions.	1	2000–2000
City of Klamath Falls v. Winters green or · 1980 1 sentence 2000In Richards v. Dahl, 289 Or 747, 752 , 618 P2d 418 (1980), decided in October 1980, this court repeated the rule found in those earlier decisions.	1	2000–2000
Johnson v. CITY OF ASTORIA green or · 1961 2 sentences 1998In Johnson v. City of Astoria, 227 Or 585 , 363 P2d 571 (1961), the court repeated the rule that the unconstitutionality of a proposed measure, if enacted, provides no basis for preenactment review by the courts. 1998In Johnson v. City of Astoria, 227 Or 585 , 363 P2d 571 (1961), the court repeated the rule that the unconstitutionality of a proposed measure, if enacted, provides no basis for preenactment review by the courts.	1	1998–1998
Kennedy v. State green ark · 1973 1 sentence 1974Kennedy v. State, — Ark —, 499 SW2d 842 (1973); State v. Vidal, 82 Wash2d 74, 508 P2d 158 (1973).	1	1974–1974
State v. Coffman green orctapp · 1972 2 sentences 1974Affirmed. ① For a description of the certification process, and the need for the statutory (ORS 483.644 (2) (c)) requirement therefor with reference to batches of chemical reagents shipped in ampoules for use in breathalyzer machines, see State v. McKay, 15 Or App 180 , 515 P2d 183 (1973), Sup Ct review denied (1974); and State v. Coffman, 11 Or App 307 , 502 P2d 605 (1972). ② Defendant relies on Menefee v. Blitz, 181 Or 100, 126 , 179 P2d 550 (1947), where the court repeated the rule from 5A CJS 989, 990, Appeal & Error § 1725. “* * * The reception of dependent evidence in face of the fact th 1974Affirmed. ① For a description of the certification process, and the need for the statutory (ORS 483.644 (2) (c)) requirement therefor with reference to batches of chemical reagents shipped in ampoules for use in breathalyzer machines, see State v. McKay, 15 Or App 180 , 515 P2d 183 (1973), Sup Ct review denied (1974); and State v. Coffman, 11 Or App 307 , 502 P2d 605 (1972). ② Defendant relies on Menefee v. Blitz, 181 Or 100, 126 , 179 P2d 550 (1947), where the court repeated the rule from 5A CJS 989, 990, Appeal & Error § 1725. “* * * The reception of dependent evidence in face of the fact th	1	1974–1974
State v. McKay green orctapp · 1973 1 sentence 1974Affirmed. ① For a description of the certification process, and the need for the statutory (ORS 483.644 (2) (c)) requirement therefor with reference to batches of chemical reagents shipped in ampoules for use in breathalyzer machines, see State v. McKay, 15 Or App 180 , 515 P2d 183 (1973), Sup Ct review denied (1974); and State v. Coffman, 11 Or App 307 , 502 P2d 605 (1972). ② Defendant relies on Menefee v. Blitz, 181 Or 100, 126 , 179 P2d 550 (1947), where the court repeated the rule from 5A CJS 989, 990, Appeal & Error § 1725. “* * * The reception of dependent evidence in face of the fact th	1	1974–1974
State v. McKat green orctapp · 1973 1 sentence 1974Affirmed. ① For a description of the certification process, and the need for the statutory (ORS 483.644 (2) (c)) requirement therefor with reference to batches of chemical reagents shipped in ampoules for use in breathalyzer machines, see State v. McKay, 15 Or App 180 , 515 P2d 183 (1973), Sup Ct review denied (1974); and State v. Coffman, 11 Or App 307 , 502 P2d 605 (1972). ② Defendant relies on Menefee v. Blitz, 181 Or 100, 126 , 179 P2d 550 (1947), where the court repeated the rule from 5A CJS 989, 990, Appeal & Error § 1725. “* * * The reception of dependent evidence in face of the fact th	1	1974–1974
State v. Vidal green wash · 1973 1 sentence 1974Kennedy v. State, — Ark —, 499 SW2d 842 (1973); State v. Vidal, 82 Wash2d 74, 508 P2d 158 (1973).	1	1974–1974
Menefee v. Blitz green or · 1947 2 sentences 1974Affirmed. ① For a description of the certification process, and the need for the statutory (ORS 483.644 (2) (c)) requirement therefor with reference to batches of chemical reagents shipped in ampoules for use in breathalyzer machines, see State v. McKay, 15 Or App 180 , 515 P2d 183 (1973), Sup Ct review denied (1974); and State v. Coffman, 11 Or App 307 , 502 P2d 605 (1972). ② Defendant relies on Menefee v. Blitz, 181 Or 100, 126 , 179 P2d 550 (1947), where the court repeated the rule from 5A CJS 989, 990, Appeal & Error § 1725. “* * * The reception of dependent evidence in face of the fact th 1974Affirmed. ① For a description of the certification process, and the need for the statutory (ORS 483.644 (2) (c)) requirement therefor with reference to batches of chemical reagents shipped in ampoules for use in breathalyzer machines, see State v. McKay, 15 Or App 180 , 515 P2d 183 (1973), Sup Ct review denied (1974); and State v. Coffman, 11 Or App 307 , 502 P2d 605 (1972). ② Defendant relies on Menefee v. Blitz, 181 Or 100, 126 , 179 P2d 550 (1947), where the court repeated the rule from 5A CJS 989, 990, Appeal & Error § 1725. “* * * The reception of dependent evidence in face of the fact th	1	1974–1974

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.270 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 40 (1886–2024) NJ 32 (1992–2026) CA 25 (1944–2026) TX 16 (1943–2015) FL 12 (1976–2024) TN 12 (1994–2018) OH 12 (1998–2026) MS 11 (1970–2026) WA 11 (1979–2025) OR 11 (1974–2026) PA 11 (1938–2020) MI 10 (1941–2018) IL 10 (1963–2023) CT 9 (1982–2020) MD 9 (1996–2020) GA 6 (1983–2025) MO 5 (2006–2024) IN 5 (1972–1993) NC 5 (1972–2016) LA 5 (1948–2011) DC 4 (1976–1997) MA 4 (1985–2025) AL 4 (1985–2016) MN 3 (2000–2015) UT 3 (1988–2011) ND 3 (1915–1983) NE 2 (1964–1992) KS 2 (2011–2017) SC 2 (1925–2021) VA 2 (1973–2007) HI 2 (1998–2007) ME 2 (2018–2018) WI 2 (1993–2024) ID 2 (1941–1997) WY 2 (1936–2017)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check