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 2001–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregongreen2 sentences2013Id. at 369-70. 2011See Strawn, 350 Or at 366-69 (explaining our contrary conclusion). | 2 | 2 |
Ivanov v. Farmers Insurancegreen1 sentence2009Instead, plaintiffs challenge the sufficiency of Farmers’ investigation of their claims before Farmers’ issued its denials, i.e., they challenge Farmers’ actions or lack thereof at the time the claims were presumed medically reasonable and necessary.” Ivanov, 344 Or at 429 (footnote omitted; emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bellshaw v. Farmers Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences2025Farmers sought appellate review, challenging numerous decisions by the trial court, including the decisions Cite as 373 Or 307 (2025) 315 to grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to deny Farmers’ motion for summary judgment. 2025Farmers sought appellate review, challenging numer- ous decisions by the trial court, including the decisions to Cite as 373 Or 307 (2025) 315 grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to deny Farmers’ motion for summary judgment. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Largent v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences2024Plaintiffs opposed Farmers’ motion by relying on our decision in Largent v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 116 Or App 595 , 842 P2d 445 (1992), in which we held that an insurance policy exclusion for “contamination” did not exclude coverage for damage caused by the tenants or their associates “through the operation of an illegal methamphet- amine laboratory.” Id. at 597 . 2024Plaintiffs opposed Farmers’ motion by relying on our decision in Largent v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 116 Or App 595 , 842 P2d 445 (1992), in which we held that an insurance policy exclusion for “contamination” did not exclude coverage for damage caused by the tenants or their associates “through the operation of an illegal methamphet- amine laboratory.” Id. at 597 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2011Co. v. Campbell, 538 US 408 , 123 S Ct 1513 , 155 L Ed 2d 585 (2003), and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 US 559 , 116 S Ct 1589 , 134 L Ed 2d 809 (1996). 19 Plaintiffs opposed Farmers’s motion for remittitur, asserting, among other reasons, that the motion was “procedurally defective” because Farmers had not conjoined it with a motion for new trial. 2011Co. v. Campbell, 538 US 408 , 123 S Ct 1513 , 155 L Ed 2d 585 (2003), and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 US 559 , 116 S Ct 1589 , 134 L Ed 2d 809 (1996). 19 Plaintiffs opposed Farmers’s motion for remittitur, asserting, among other reasons, that the motion was “procedurally defective” because Farmers had not conjoined it with a motion for new trial. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
green
2 sentences2011Co. v. Campbell, 538 US 408 , 123 S Ct 1513 , 155 L Ed 2d 585 (2003), and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 US 559 , 116 S Ct 1589 , 134 L Ed 2d 809 (1996). 19 Plaintiffs opposed Farmers’s motion for remittitur, asserting, among other reasons, that the motion was “procedurally defective” because Farmers had not conjoined it with a motion for new trial. 2011Co. v. Campbell, 538 US 408 , 123 S Ct 1513 , 155 L Ed 2d 585 (2003), and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 US 559 , 116 S Ct 1589 , 134 L Ed 2d 809 (1996). 19 Plaintiffs opposed Farmers’s motion for remittitur, asserting, among other reasons, that the motion was “procedurally defective” because Farmers had not conjoined it with a motion for new trial. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Bolt v. Influence, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011Thus, Farmers's arguments in that regard are not properly before us. [12] See Bolt v. Influence, Inc., 333 Or. 572, 578 , 43 P.3d 425 (2002) (in deciding motion for directed verdict, a trial court must consider all the evidence, including reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion). [13] Newman arose in a different procedural posturea dispute over class certification. 2011Thus, Farmers's arguments in that regard are not properly before us. [12] See Bolt v. Influence, Inc., 333 Or. 572, 578 , 43 P.3d 425 (2002) (in deciding motion for directed verdict, a trial court must consider all the evidence, including reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion). [13] Newman arose in a different procedural posturea dispute over class certification. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Strawn v. Farmers Insurance
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Goggan v. Consolidated Millinery Co.
neutral
2 sentences2001Farmers contends that we should follow the standard of review set out in Goggan v. Consolidated Millinery Co., 242 Or 328, 332 , 409 P2d 174 (1965), and affirm the order of a new trial “if the instructions are susceptible of any reasonable interpretation which would make them erroneous.” Plaintiff argues that the appropriate standard of review of the trial court’s order granting Farmers’s motion for a new trial is for errors of law. 2001Farmers contends that we should follow the standard of review set out in Goggan v. Consolidated Millinery Co., 242 Or 328, 332 , 409 P2d 174 (1965), and affirm the order of a new trial “if the instructions are susceptible of any reasonable interpretation which would make them erroneous.” Plaintiff argues that the appropriate standard of review of the trial court’s order granting Farmers’s motion for a new trial is for errors of law. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.