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 2011–2025 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Church v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2025Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that plain- tiff’s claims for financial elder abuse (claims 5 through 7) failed to state a claim.4 In order to plead an elder abuse claim based on the wrongful taking of money or property, plaintiff’s complaint must demonstrate, “(1) a taking or appropriation (2) of money or property (3) that belongs to an elderly * * * person, and (4) the taking must be wrongful.” Church v. Woods, 190 Or App 112, 117 , 77 P3d 1150 (2003); see also ORS 124.110(1)(a) (an action for financial abuse of an elderly person may be 3 With the 2025Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that plain- tiff’s claims for financial elder abuse (claims 5 through 7) failed to state a claim.4 In order to plead an elder abuse claim based on the wrongful taking of money or property, plaintiff’s complaint must demonstrate, “(1) a taking or appropriation (2) of money or property (3) that belongs to an elderly * * * person, and (4) the taking must be wrongful.” Church v. Woods, 190 Or App 112, 117 , 77 P3d 1150 (2003); see also ORS 124.110(1)(a) (an action for financial abuse of an elderly person may be 3 With the | 2 | 3 |
Price v. Lotlikargreen2 sentences2025ORS 113.035; see Price, 285 Or App at 705 (determining relatives did not have standing to petition for probate where they did not have a property right or claim against the estate). 2025ORS 113.035; see Price, 285 Or App at 705 (determining relatives did not have standing to petition for probate where they did not have a property right or claim against the estate). | 2 | 2 |
Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLCgreen2 sentences2025Breach of contract claim With regard to the breach of contract claim, plain- tiffs alleged that Elkside had “assign[ed] its obligations” to defendant and defendant had “thereafter denied the Plaintiffs’ rights under the membership camping contracts.” Plaintiffs further alleged that, if defendant was found to be Elkside’s successor in interest, defendant was obligated to honor the contracts between plaintiffs and Elkside and, by refusing to do so, had breached them. 6 In Adelsperger I, we held that the trial court had not erred in granting summary judgment to the member-managers—the Barnetts—on 2025Breach of contract claim With regard to the breach of contract claim, plain- tiffs alleged that Elkside had “assign[ed] its obligations” to defendant and defendant had “thereafter denied the Plaintiffs’ rights under the membership camping contracts.” Plaintiffs further alleged that, if defendant was found to be Elkside’s successor in interest, defendant was obligated to honor the contracts between plaintiffs and Elkside and, by refusing to do so, had breached them. 6 In Adelsperger I, we held that the trial court had not erred in granting summary judgment to the member-managers—the Barnetts—on | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLC
green
2 sentences2025Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLC, 322 Or App 809, 811 , 523 P3d 142 (2022) (Adelsperger II). 2025Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLC, 322 Or App 809, 811 , 523 P3d 142 (2022) (Adelsperger II). | 3 | 2023–2025 |
Webb v. Underhill
green
1 sentence2025The claims in the second action, as plaintiff’s trial counsel correctly acknowledged, involved “the same plaintiff, same defendant and related to the same series of events.” That is, 5 We acknowledge that, under Webb, 174 Or App 592 , trial courts lack author- ity under ORCP 53 A to consolidate actions that involve the same cause of action. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Coast 2 Coast Logistics v. Badger Auctioneers
neutral
2 sentences2025Coast 2 Coast Logistics, LLC v. Badger Auctioneers, Inc., 323 Or App 374, 388 , 524 P3d 555 (2022) (“The trial court has wide discretion in making the factual determinations necessary to segregate claims that are covered by an attorney fee provision from those that are not, and we review the trial court’s apportionment decision for an abuse of discretion.” (Internal citation omitted.)). 2025Coast 2 Coast Logistics, LLC v. Badger Auctioneers, Inc., 323 Or App 374, 388 , 524 P3d 555 (2022) (“The trial court has wide discretion in making the factual determinations necessary to segregate claims that are covered by an attorney fee provision from those that are not, and we review the trial court’s apportionment decision for an abuse of discretion.” (Internal citation omitted.)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Wines v. Fredeic
neutral
1 sentence2025Importantly, the amendment further provided that failure to mail a copy of the complaint to the Attorney General “is not a juris- dictional defect and may be cured at any time prior to entry of judgment.” Nonprecedential Memo Op: 337 Or App 329 (2025) 331 Instead of filing an amended complaint in the origi- nal action, plaintiff filed a new action on February 20, 2019, that alleged an elder-abuse claim and claims to set aside and to invalidate a deed.4 The new action was assigned to a dif- ferent judge from the judge assigned to the original action. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.