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 3 courts 1937–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
STATE EX REL. JUV. DEPT. v. Fitchgreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., Fitch, 192 Or App at 62 n 3 (“An exception to [the rule that the date the defendant is taken into custody controls] exists for circumstances in which the state intentionally delays prosecution to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction.”); Pike, 177 Or App at 153 n 2 (“When the state intentionally delays prosecution to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction, the court has recognized an exception!.]”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Paulsongreen2 sentences1996See State v. Paulson, 313 Or 346, 353 , 833 P2d 1278 (1992) (describing doctrine of inevitable discovery: when police inevitably would have discovered the same evidence lawfully irrespective of an unlawful search or seizure, suppression is not necessarily required). 1996See State v. Paulson, 313 Or 346, 353 , 833 P2d 1278 (1992) (describing doctrine of inevitable discovery: when police inevitably would have discovered the same evidence lawfully irrespective of an unlawful search or seizure, suppression is not necessarily required). | 1 | 1 |
Hanscom v. Irwingreen2 sentences1972See Hanscom v. Irwin, 186 Or. 541, 558-559 , 208 P.2d 330, 337 (1949). 1972See Hanscom v. Irwin, 186 Or. 541, 558-559 , 208 P.2d 330, 337 (1949). | 1 | 1 |
Keadle v. Paddengreen2 sentences1937In Witness Whereof, the employe has hereunto set his hand, and the • Pacific Indemnity Company has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized representative, both on this 30th day of April, 1934, at Portland, Oregon.” The authorities are in conflict as to the effect of such an agreement as the one above set out; but this court has recognized the rule which construes such an agreement as a covenant not to sue: Keadle v. Padden, 143 Or. 350, 362 ( 20 P. (2d) 403 , 22 P. (2d) 892 ). 1937In Witness Whereof, the employe has hereunto set his hand, and the • Pacific Indemnity Company has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized representative, both on this 30th day of April, 1934, at Portland, Oregon.” The authorities are in conflict as to the effect of such an agreement as the one above set out; but this court has recognized the rule which construes such an agreement as a covenant not to sue: Keadle v. Padden, 143 Or. 350, 362 ( 20 P. (2d) 403 , 22 P. (2d) 892 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lambert
neutral
2 sentences2021In Perez-Rodriguez, the petitioner argued that “his mental illness and intellectual disability prevented him from knowing that he had a claim for post-conviction relief 4 Although this court has recognized a rule of construction that “use of the same word or phrase throughout the statute demonstrates that the word [or phrase] has the same meaning throughout the statute,” State v. Lambert, 227 Or App 614, 618 , 206 P3d 1065 (2009), “such rules of interpretation are mere assump- tions that always give way to more direct evidence of legislative intent,” Brown v. SAIF Corp., 361 Or 241, 260 , 391 2021In Perez-Rodriguez, the petitioner argued that “his mental illness and intellectual disability prevented him from knowing that he had a claim for post-conviction relief 4 Although this court has recognized a rule of construction that “use of the same word or phrase throughout the statute demonstrates that the word [or phrase] has the same meaning throughout the statute,” State v. Lambert, 227 Or App 614, 618 , 206 P3d 1065 (2009), “such rules of interpretation are mere assump- tions that always give way to more direct evidence of legislative intent,” Brown v. SAIF Corp., 361 Or 241, 260 , 391 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Brown v. SAIF Corp.
green
2 sentences2021In Perez-Rodriguez, the petitioner argued that “his mental illness and intellectual disability prevented him from knowing that he had a claim for post-conviction relief 4 Although this court has recognized a rule of construction that “use of the same word or phrase throughout the statute demonstrates that the word [or phrase] has the same meaning throughout the statute,” State v. Lambert, 227 Or App 614, 618 , 206 P3d 1065 (2009), “such rules of interpretation are mere assump- tions that always give way to more direct evidence of legislative intent,” Brown v. SAIF Corp., 361 Or 241, 260 , 391 2021In Perez-Rodriguez, the petitioner argued that “his mental illness and intellectual disability prevented him from knowing that he had a claim for post-conviction relief 4 Although this court has recognized a rule of construction that “use of the same word or phrase throughout the statute demonstrates that the word [or phrase] has the same meaning throughout the statute,” State v. Lambert, 227 Or App 614, 618 , 206 P3d 1065 (2009), “such rules of interpretation are mere assump- tions that always give way to more direct evidence of legislative intent,” Brown v. SAIF Corp., 361 Or 241, 260 , 391 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Pike
green
1 sentence2005See, e.g., Fitch, 192 Or App at 62 n 3 (“An exception to [the rule that the date the defendant is taken into custody controls] exists for circumstances in which the state intentionally delays prosecution to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction.”); Pike, 177 Or App at 153 n 2 (“When the state intentionally delays prosecution to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction, the court has recognized an exception!.]”). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Scurlock
green
1 sentence2001Scurlock, 286 Or at 281-82 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Goltz
green
2 sentences2001State v. Goltz, 169 Or App 619, 624 , 10 P3d 955 (2000), rev den 331 Or 583 (2001). 2 When the state intentionally delays prosecution to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction, the court has recognized an exception to this rule. 2001State v. Goltz, 169 Or App 619, 624 , 10 P3d 955 (2000), rev den 331 Or 583 (2001). 2 When the state intentionally delays prosecution to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction, the court has recognized an exception to this rule. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Ross v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1984Ross v. Robinson, 169 Or 293, 319 , 124 P2d 918 , 128 P2d 956 (1942). 1984Ross v. Robinson, 169 Or 293, 319 , 124 P2d 918 , 128 P2d 956 (1942). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Hicklin v. Anders
green
2 sentences1969We stated: “The authorities are in conflict as to the effect of such an agreement as the *452 one above set out; bnt this court has recognized the rule which construes such an agreement as a covenant not to sue.” Our latest decision on this issue is Hicklin v. Anders, 201 Or 128 , 253 P2d 897 , 269 P2d 521 (1954). 1969We stated: “The authorities are in conflict as to the effect of such an agreement as the *452 one above set out; bnt this court has recognized the rule which construes such an agreement as a covenant not to sue.” Our latest decision on this issue is Hicklin v. Anders, 201 Or 128 , 253 P2d 897 , 269 P2d 521 (1954). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Lundeen v. State Tax Commission
neutral
1 sentence1965This court has recognized the principle of the Knappton Towboat Co. case in Lundeen v. Commission, 2 OTR 13 (1964). | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union
green
1 sentence1958In Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union, 103 Or 514 , 201 *361 P 222, 205 P 970 , the plaintiff company sued the defendant union and certain growers of loganberries to enforce performance of a contract by which the Prnit Union agreed to deliver the crop of the growers to the plaintiff. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.