11 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1979–1997 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Gustafsongreen2 sentences1996Under that test, more than awareness of the circumstances is required to establish “willful.” As the Supreme Court recently explained: “This court has held that there are two predicates for a ‘wilful violation’ of a rule of judicial conduct established by this court, each of which is necessary for there to be a wilful violation: (1) that the judge must intend ‘to cause a result or take an action contrary to the applicable rule’ of judicial conduct, and (2) that the judge must be ‘aware of circumstances that in fact make the rule applicable, whether or not the judge knows that he violates the r 1994In this case, the Commission later concluded that the Judge wilfully violated Canon 3 C(1) by not disqualifying himself in the Hopkins juvenile case before the peremptory writ of mandamus issued. *193 This court has held that there are two predicates for a "wilful violation" of a rule of judicial conduct established by this court, each of which is necessary for there to be a wilful violation: (1) that the judge must intend "to cause a result or take an action contrary to the applicable rule" of judicial conduct, and (2) that the judge must be "aware of circumstances that in fact make the rule | 1 | 2 |
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Fadeleygreen2 sentences1994It also may be an appropriate sanction, even for a significant violation of the Code as it relates to judicial conduct per se, where the conduct was public and where the court has "no reason to think that the incidents will be repeated or that the Accused requires any greater sanction than the publication of this opinion and the publicity attendant to this proceeding." In re Fadeley, supra, 310 Or. at 573 , 802 P.2d 31 (censure of a sitting judge for violations of the Code's prohibition on fundraising conducted while a candidate for the office). 1994It also may be an appropriate sanction, even for a significant violation of the Code as it relates to judicial conduct per se, where the conduct was public and where the court has "no reason to think that the incidents will be repeated or that the Accused requires any greater sanction than the publication of this opinion and the publicity attendant to this proceeding." In re Fadeley, supra, 310 Or. at 573 , 802 P.2d 31 (censure of a sitting judge for violations of the Code's prohibition on fundraising conducted while a candidate for the office). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Fieldgreen2 sentences1994See In re Gustafson, 305 Or. 655, 668 , 756 P.2d 21 (1988) (applying that standard); In the Matter of Field, supra, 281 Or. at 629 , 576 P.2d 348 (same). 1994See In re Gustafson, 305 Or. 655, 668 , 756 P.2d 21 (1988) (applying that standard); In the Matter of Field, supra, 281 Or. at 629 , 576 P.2d 348 (same). | 1 | 1 |
Lundy v. Employment Divisiongreen1 sentence1987That reading seems to be contrary to the cases that inspired the rule, see Lundy v. Employment Div., supra, 34 Or App at 269 (Tanzer, J., dissenting), and also contrary to Division’s definition of “misconduct.” The Supreme Court made its own (apparently de novo) conclusions on the basis of the referee’s findings. | 1 | 1 |
2-D's Logging, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co.green2 sentences1984See also 2-D’s Logging v. Weyerhaeuser, 53 Or App 677 , 632 P2d 1319 (1981). 8 ORS 646.605(9) provides: “(9) A wilful violation occurs when the person committing the violation knew or should have known that his conduct was a violation.” 1984See also 2-D’s Logging v. Weyerhaeuser, 53 Or App 677 , 632 P2d 1319 (1981). 8 ORS 646.605(9) provides: “(9) A wilful violation occurs when the person committing the violation knew or should have known that his conduct was a violation.” | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Francisgreen2 sentences1979See Sanders v. Francis, 277 Or 593, 598 , 561 P2d 1003 (1977); Scott v. Western Int. 1979See Sanders v. Francis, 277 Or 593, 598 , 561 P2d 1003 (1977); Scott v. Western Int. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bunnell v. Employment Division
green
2 sentences1993Isolated instances of poor judgment* * * are not misconduct for the purposes of denying benefits under ORS 657.176.” In Bunnell v. Employment Division, 304 Or 11, 16 , 791 P2d 887 (1987), the claimant was discharged for a sudden, short angry outburst against her employer, during which she told him that she had “had enough of this shit.” The court discussed OAR 471-30-038(3), and concluded that conduct that constitutes a wilful violation of the standards of behavior that the employer has a right to expect is not “misconduct,” for purposes of disqualification from employment benefits, if the con 1987It held that “the referee and EAB could reasonably conclude from [the] facts that claimant’s conduct constituted a wilful violation of the standards of behavior which * * * employer had a right to expect,” Bunnell v. Employment Division, supra, 304 Or at 16 , but then said that the evidence would not support the conclusion that the conduct was more than an isolated instance of poor judgment. | 3 | 1987–1993 |
Waters v. Employment Division
green
2 sentences1997In describing the relationship between a willful rule violation, which is the type of *325 misconduct that the EAB concluded claimant engaged in, and an isolated instance of poor judgment, we have explained that “conduct that constitutes a wilful violation of the standards of behavior that the employer has a right to expect is not ‘misconduct,’ for purposes of disqualification from employment benefits, if the conduct is an isolated instance of poor judgment.” Waters v. Employment Div., 125 Or App 61, 64 , 865 P2d 368 (1993) (citing Bunnell) (emphasis supplied). 1997In describing the relationship between a willful rule violation, which is the type of *325 misconduct that the EAB concluded claimant engaged in, and an isolated instance of poor judgment, we have explained that “conduct that constitutes a wilful violation of the standards of behavior that the employer has a right to expect is not ‘misconduct,’ for purposes of disqualification from employment benefits, if the conduct is an isolated instance of poor judgment.” Waters v. Employment Div., 125 Or App 61, 64 , 865 P2d 368 (1993) (citing Bunnell) (emphasis supplied). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Schenck
green
2 sentences1996Under that test, more than awareness of the circumstances is required to establish “willful.” As the Supreme Court recently explained: “This court has held that there are two predicates for a ‘wilful violation’ of a rule of judicial conduct established by this court, each of which is necessary for there to be a wilful violation: (1) that the judge must intend ‘to cause a result or take an action contrary to the applicable rule’ of judicial conduct, and (2) that the judge must be ‘aware of circumstances that in fact make the rule applicable, whether or not the judge knows that he violates the r 1996Under that test, more than awareness of the circumstances is required to establish “willful.” As the Supreme Court recently explained: “This court has held that there are two predicates for a ‘wilful violation’ of a rule of judicial conduct established by this court, each of which is necessary for there to be a wilful violation: (1) that the judge must intend ‘to cause a result or take an action contrary to the applicable rule’ of judicial conduct, and (2) that the judge must be ‘aware of circumstances that in fact make the rule applicable, whether or not the judge knows that he violates the r | 1 | 1996–1996 |
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Roth
green
2 sentences1994In re Roth, 293 Or. 179, 189 , 645 P.2d 1064 (1982) (censure for conduct that amounted to criminal mischief in the third degree and a wilful violation of Canon 2 A). 1994In re Roth, 293 Or. 179, 189 , 645 P.2d 1064 (1982) (censure for conduct that amounted to criminal mischief in the third degree and a wilful violation of Canon 2 A). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Oliver v. Employment Division
green
2 sentences1991An act that amounts to a wilful disregard of an employer's interest * * * is misconduct." [3] The majority's reliance on Oliver v. Employment Division, 40 Or.App. 487 , 595 P.2d 1252 (1979), is misplaced. 1991An act that amounts to a wilful disregard of an employer's interest * * * is misconduct." [3] The majority's reliance on Oliver v. Employment Division, 40 Or.App. 487 , 595 P.2d 1252 (1979), is misplaced. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Piper
green
2 sentences1990Article VII (Amended), section 8, of the Oregon Constitution now provides: “(1) In the manner provided by law, and notwithstanding section 1 of this Article, a judge of any court may be removed or suspended from his judicial office by the Supreme Court, or censured by the Supreme Court, for: “(a) Conviction in a court of this or any other state, or of the United States, of a crime punishable as a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude; or “(b) Wilful misconduct in a judicial office where such misconduct bears a demonstrable relationship to the effective performance of judicial duties; or 1990Article VII (Amended), section 8, of the Oregon Constitution now provides: “(1) In the manner provided by law, and notwithstanding section 1 of this Article, a judge of any court may be removed or suspended from his judicial office by the Supreme Court, or censured by the Supreme Court, for: “(a) Conviction in a court of this or any other state, or of the United States, of a crime punishable as a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude; or “(b) Wilful misconduct in a judicial office where such misconduct bears a demonstrable relationship to the effective performance of judicial duties; or | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Reed v. Curry-Kropp-Cates, Inc.
green
2 sentences1989We hold that a wilful violation of the employment contract that caused, or would have justified, termination of the employment bars the employe’s right to recover attorney fees, provided the employer has not acquiesced in the violation, or waived his right to assert it as a bar, by continuing the employment after its discovery.” (Emphasis in original.) Accord: Reed v. Curry-Kropp-Cates, Inc., 61 Or App 520, 524-25 , 658 P2d 531 (1983). 1989We hold that a wilful violation of the employment contract that caused, or would have justified, termination of the employment bars the employe’s right to recover attorney fees, provided the employer has not acquiesced in the violation, or waived his right to assert it as a bar, by continuing the employment after its discovery.” (Emphasis in original.) Accord: Reed v. Curry-Kropp-Cates, Inc., 61 Or App 520, 524-25 , 658 P2d 531 (1983). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.