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.
10 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1894–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
West v. Washington Railway Co.green2 sentences1961See Young v. Neill, supra. • • We accept- the rule substantially as stated in the cases cited, qualifying it.only by. giving approval also *479 to West v. Washington Railway Co., 49 Or 436 , 90 P 666 : In that case the :court repudiated the • suggested rule that proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt and then considered,. not only what was said by the plaintiff and the defendant as to the term of the lease, but also considered the circumstances surrounding the transaction which established a strong- probability in favor of the .accuracy of the .plaintiff’s testimony. 1961See Young v. Neill, supra. • • We accept- the rule substantially as stated in the cases cited, qualifying it.only by. giving approval also *479 to West v. Washington Railway Co., 49 Or 436 , 90 P 666 : In that case the :court repudiated the • suggested rule that proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt and then considered,. not only what was said by the plaintiff and the defendant as to the term of the lease, but also considered the circumstances surrounding the transaction which established a strong- probability in favor of the .accuracy of the .plaintiff’s testimony. | 1 | 1 |
Wilkes v. Corneliusgreen1 sentence1917It has been held that if the claim presented shows on its face that claimant has no cause of action, the claim cannot be the basis of a successful litigation with the executor: Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348, 352 ( 28 Pac. 135 ); McGrath v. Carroll, 110 Cal. 79 ( 42 Pac. 466, 468 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lawrence v. Oregon State Fair Council
neutral
1 sentence2022As set forth above, the trial court con- cluded that defendant had opened the door, but it none- theless excluded the evidence, because the evidence was to be offered by plaintiff and his family members, who had a “self-serving interest,” and the court did not believe that “that form of evidence would be appropriate.” Plaintiff did not object to the court’s conclusion or offer any argument as to why the “form of evidence” was appropriate and the Cite as 318 Or App 766 (2022) 771 evidence was admissible. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Wyatt
green
2 sentences2022State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 346-47 , 15 P3d 22 (2000) (concluding that we could not review an unpreserved claim of error, even where the defendant conceded that the error was preserved). 2022State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 346-47 , 15 P3d 22 (2000) (concluding that we could not review an unpreserved claim of error, even where the defendant conceded that the error was preserved). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re the Marriage of Matar
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Clatsop Co.)
green
2 sentences2009The state’s acquiescence in entry of the amended judgment, contrary to mother’s position, does not “estop” the state from asserting a defect in the court’s jurisdiction over the appeal, because jurisdiction cannot be established by the agreement or waiver of the parties. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Clatsop Co.), 301 Or 622, 632 , 724 P2d 805 (1986). 2009The state’s acquiescence in entry of the amended judgment, contrary to mother’s position, does not “estop” the state from asserting a defect in the court’s jurisdiction over the appeal, because jurisdiction cannot be established by the agreement or waiver of the parties. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Clatsop Co.), 301 Or 622, 632 , 724 P2d 805 (1986). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Boston & Maine Railroad v. Union Mutual Fire Insurance
neutral
2 sentences2006Id. at 558 , 77 A. 874 . 2006Id. at 558 , 77 A. 874 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Brewer v. Allstate Insurance Company
green
1 sentence1995Judicial intervention is appropriate only if the arbitrator’s interpretation of the attorney fee provision of the agreement is “so grossly erroneous as to strike at the heart of the decision-making process.” Brewer, 248 Or at 563 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
L & M Investment Co. v. Morrison
green
1 sentence1978ORS 91.800(2) seems to reflect a recognition that a landlord, if he chooses to permit termination, may be compelled by injunction to provide at least "essential services” during the pretermination period and may be subject to damages for the breach of the agreement or violation of the habitability requirements of ORS 91.770. 4 Our discussion of this point amplifies that in our original opinion, 34 Or App at 237-38 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Moreno
green
1 sentence1925Unquestionably since Willamette Mills Co. v. Shea , 24 Or. 40 ( 32 P. 759 ), it is competent to include in a single contract, two or more buildings or other structures so that a subcontractor performing part of the work called for by the same agreement may claim a lien upon all the structures within the embrace of the stipulation. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Willamette Mills Co. v. Shea
green
1 sentence1925Unquestionably since Willamette Mills Co. v. Shea , 24 Or. 40 ( 32 P. 759 ), it is competent to include in a single contract, two or more buildings or other structures so that a subcontractor performing part of the work called for by the same agreement may claim a lien upon all the structures within the embrace of the stipulation. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Díaz v. Barceló
neutral
1 sentence1917It has been held that if the claim presented shows on its face that claimant has no cause of action, the claim cannot be the basis of a successful litigation with the executor: Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348, 352 ( 28 Pac. 135 ); McGrath v. Carroll, 110 Cal. 79 ( 42 Pac. 466, 468 ). | 1 | 1917–1917 |
McGrath v. Carroll
green
2 sentences1917It has been held that if the claim presented shows on its face that claimant has no cause of action, the claim cannot be the basis of a successful litigation with the executor: Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348, 352 ( 28 Pac. 135 ); McGrath v. Carroll, 110 Cal. 79 ( 42 Pac. 466, 468 ). 1917It has been held that if the claim presented shows on its face that claimant has no cause of action, the claim cannot be the basis of a successful litigation with the executor: Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348, 352 ( 28 Pac. 135 ); McGrath v. Carroll, 110 Cal. 79 ( 42 Pac. 466, 468 ). | 1 | 1917–1917 |
President of Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Pennsylvania Coal Co.
green
1 sentence1894An agreement to refer all matters of dispute that may arise under an executory contract would oust courts of jurisdiction (Delaware, etc., Canal Company v. Pennsylvania Coal Company, 50 N. Y. 250 ), and therefore such an agreement does not bar a party’s remedy by action at law or by suit in equity: Smith v. Boston & Concord Railroad Company, 36 N. H. 458. | 1 | 1894–1894 |
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.