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.
11 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hoeck v. Schwabe, Williamson & Wyattgreen2 sentences2002Accord Hoeck v. Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, 149 Or App 607, 618-19 , 945 P2d 534 (1997) (noting that, while “service by unregistered mail by itself is not adequate to satisfy the reasonable notice requirement of ORCP 7 D(l),” a “follow-up mailing by unrestricted delivery, coupled with other forms of service,” may be sufficient). 2002Accord Hoeck v. Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, 149 Or App 607, 618-19 , 945 P2d 534 (1997) (noting that, while “service by unregistered mail by itself is not adequate to satisfy the reasonable notice requirement of ORCP 7 D(l),” a “follow-up mailing by unrestricted delivery, coupled with other forms of service,” may be sufficient). | 1 | 2 |
Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP v. Menkengreen2 sentences2025We have previously held that, “as a general rule, service by mail on an individual must be by restricted delivery—i.e., only the person being served can either accept or refuse the mailing—to satisfy the reasonable notice standard of ORCP 7 D(1).” Davis Wright Tremaine, 181 Or App at 341. 2025Id. | 1 | 1 |
Hoyt v. Paulosgreen2 sentences1996Mitchell, 123 Or App at 427 ; see also Hoyt v. Paulos, 310 Or 196, 202 , 796 P2d 355 (1990) (MVD service is personal service on defendant’s statutorily appointed agent, a method authorized by ORCP 7 D(l) and 7 D(3)(a)(i)). 1996Mitchell, 123 Or App at 427 ; see also Hoyt v. Paulos, 310 Or 196, 202 , 796 P2d 355 (1990) (MVD service is personal service on defendant’s statutorily appointed agent, a method authorized by ORCP 7 D(l) and 7 D(3)(a)(i)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Murphy v. Price
green
2 sentences2002Under the circumstances, the attempted service did not comport with the reasonable notice requirement of ORCP 7 D(l).” Murphy, 131 Or App at 697 . 1998Murphy, 131 Or App at 696-97 . | 4 | 1996–2002 |
Baker v. Foy
green
2 sentences1998The court further explained that ORCP 7 D(l) does not require “a particular manner of service” but, rather, “endorses the process of examining the totality of the circumstances, to determine if the service of summons was reasonably calculated to provide [the] defendant with notice of the action and [a] reasonable opportunity to appear and defend.” Id. at 225 . 1997Baker, 310 Or at 228-29 . *616 ORCP 7 D(3) provides, in relevant part: “Service may be made upon specified defendants as follows: “D(3)(a) Individuals. | 3 | 1995–1998 |
Lonsdale v. Swart
green
2 sentences2002In Lonsdale v. Swart, 143 Or App 331, 337 , 922 P2d 1263 (1996), rev den 325 Or 247 (1997), a defamation case, we relied on Murphy in concluding that the plaintiffs attempted mail service on the defendant newspaper publisher did not constitute reasonable notice because the notice had been mailed without requesting restricted delivery. 2002In Lonsdale v. Swart, 143 Or App 331, 337 , 922 P2d 1263 (1996), rev den 325 Or 247 (1997), a defamation case, we relied on Murphy in concluding that the plaintiffs attempted mail service on the defendant newspaper publisher did not constitute reasonable notice because the notice had been mailed without requesting restricted delivery. | 2 | 1997–2002 |
Boyd v. Boyd
green
2 sentences1997Similarly, in Boyd and Boyd, 131 Or App 194, 199-200 , 884 P2d 556 (1994), rev den 320 Or 507 (1995), this court held that service on the defendant’s bookkeeper, who was employed to pay the defendant’s bills and take care of other miscellaneous personal business affairs, satisfied the reasonable notice requirement of ORCP 7 D(l). 1997Similarly, in Boyd and Boyd, 131 Or App 194, 199-200 , 884 P2d 556 (1994), rev den 320 Or 507 (1995), this court held that service on the defendant’s bookkeeper, who was employed to pay the defendant’s bills and take care of other miscellaneous personal business affairs, satisfied the reasonable notice requirement of ORCP 7 D(l). | 2 | 1997–1998 |
Mitchell v. Harris
green
2 sentences1996Mitchell, 123 Or.App. at 427 , 859 P.2d 1196 ; see also Hoyt v. Paulos, 310 Or. 196, 202 , 796 P.2d 355 (1990) (MVD service is personal service on defendant's statutorily appointed agent, a method authorized by ORCP 7D(1) and 7D(3)(a)(i)). 1996Mitchell, 123 Or App at 427 ; see also Hoyt v. Paulos, 310 Or 196, 202 , 796 P2d 355 (1990) (MVD service is personal service on defendant’s statutorily appointed agent, a method authorized by ORCP 7 D(l) and 7 D(3)(a)(i)). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Atterbury v. Wells
green
2 sentences1995The trial court, therefore, was incorrect in its conclusion that service on MVD and Rose’s insurer was adequate.” See also Atterbury v. Wells, 125 Or App 591 , 866 P2d 484 , rev den 319 Or 80 (1994). 1995The trial court, therefore, was incorrect in its conclusion that service on MVD and Rose’s insurer was adequate.” See also Atterbury v. Wells, 125 Or App 591 , 866 P2d 484 , rev den 319 Or 80 (1994). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Luyet v. Ehrnfelt
green
2 sentences1994Under the circumstances, the attempted service did not comport with the reasonable notice requirement of ORCP 7D(1). 2 Citing Lake Oswego Review v. Steinkamp, 298 Or 607 , 695 P2d 565 (1985), and Luyet v. Ehrnfelt, 118 Or App 635 , 848 P2d 654 (1993), plaintiff insists that service under the circumstances of this case was nevertheless adequate. 1994Under the circumstances, the attempted service did not comport with the reasonable notice requirement of ORCP 7D(1). 2 Citing Lake Oswego Review v. Steinkamp, 298 Or 607 , 695 P2d 565 (1985), and Luyet v. Ehrnfelt, 118 Or App 635 , 848 P2d 654 (1993), plaintiff insists that service under the circumstances of this case was nevertheless adequate. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Beckett v. Martinez
green
2 sentences1994Baker v. Foy, supra, 310 at 225 n 6; Beckett v. Martinez, 119 Or App 338 , 343 n 3, 850 P2d 1148 , rev den 317 Or 583 (1993). 1994Baker v. Foy, supra, 310 at 225 n 6; Beckett v. Martinez, 119 Or App 338 , 343 n 3, 850 P2d 1148 , rev den 317 Or 583 (1993). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Lake Oswego Review, Inc. v. Steinkamp
green
2 sentences1994Under the circumstances, the attempted service did not comport with the reasonable notice requirement of ORCP 7D(1). 2 Citing Lake Oswego Review v. Steinkamp, 298 Or 607 , 695 P2d 565 (1985), and Luyet v. Ehrnfelt, 118 Or App 635 , 848 P2d 654 (1993), plaintiff insists that service under the circumstances of this case was nevertheless adequate. 1994Under the circumstances, the attempted service did not comport with the reasonable notice requirement of ORCP 7D(1). 2 Citing Lake Oswego Review v. Steinkamp, 298 Or 607 , 695 P2d 565 (1985), and Luyet v. Ehrnfelt, 118 Or App 635 , 848 P2d 654 (1993), plaintiff insists that service under the circumstances of this case was nevertheless adequate. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.