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 1985–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Creekside Homeowners Assn. v. Creekside Golf Coursegreen1 sentence2021In plaintiff’s view, that provision’s omission of an explicit right to eliminate the golf course unambiguously reflects the declarant’s intent to prohibit the removal of the golf course, at least short of an amendment to the CC&Rs by plaintiff’s members. 3 Article III of the CC&Rs is entitled “GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.” 664 Creekside Homeowners Assn. v. Creekside Golf Course The majority opinion acknowledges that Article VII, section 1, provides that a portion of the property “shall consist of the golf course,” but it rejects plaintiff’s argu- ment as to the significance of that clause. 316 Or | 1 | 1 |
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.green2 sentences2001See State v. Jones, 129 Or App 413, 417 , 879 P2d 881 (1994) (citing similar factors as justifying exercise of discretion to review unpreserved claim of sentencing error under Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 , 823 P2d 956 (1991)). 16 Because it may be relevant on remand, we note here that the statutory maximum of five years applies to the “total sentence length,” which includes both the term of incarceration and post-prison supervision: “The term of post-prison supervision, when added to the prison term, shall not exceed the statutory maximum indeterminate sentence for the crime of 2001See State v. Jones, 129 Or App 413, 417 , 879 P2d 881 (1994) (citing similar factors as justifying exercise of discretion to review unpreserved claim of sentencing error under Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 , 823 P2d 956 (1991)). 16 Because it may be relevant on remand, we note here that the statutory maximum of five years applies to the “total sentence length,” which includes both the term of incarceration and post-prison supervision: “The term of post-prison supervision, when added to the prison term, shall not exceed the statutory maximum indeterminate sentence for the crime of | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2001See State v. Jones, 129 Or App 413, 417 , 879 P2d 881 (1994) (citing similar factors as justifying exercise of discretion to review unpreserved claim of sentencing error under Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 , 823 P2d 956 (1991)). 16 Because it may be relevant on remand, we note here that the statutory maximum of five years applies to the “total sentence length,” which includes both the term of incarceration and post-prison supervision: “The term of post-prison supervision, when added to the prison term, shall not exceed the statutory maximum indeterminate sentence for the crime of 2001See State v. Jones, 129 Or App 413, 417 , 879 P2d 881 (1994) (citing similar factors as justifying exercise of discretion to review unpreserved claim of sentencing error under Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 , 823 P2d 956 (1991)). 16 Because it may be relevant on remand, we note here that the statutory maximum of five years applies to the “total sentence length,” which includes both the term of incarceration and post-prison supervision: “The term of post-prison supervision, when added to the prison term, shall not exceed the statutory maximum indeterminate sentence for the crime of | 1 | 1 |
Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc. v. Roloffgreen2 sentences1985See Bob Godfrey Pontiac v. Roloff, 291 Or 318 , 630 P2d 840 (1981) (majority and concurring opinions). 1985See Bob Godfrey Pontiac v. Roloff, 291 Or 318 , 630 P2d 840 (1981) (majority and concurring opinions). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lenon v. Public Employees Retirement Board
green
2 sentences2010We recently discussed the meaning of that phrase in Lenon v. PERB, 228 Or App 20, 27-28 , 206 P3d 1165 (2009): “In ordinary parlance, ‘accordance’ refers to agreement or harmony. 2010We recently discussed the meaning of that phrase in Lenon v. PERB, 228 Or App 20, 27-28 , 206 P3d 1165 (2009): “In ordinary parlance, ‘accordance’ refers to agreement or harmony. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. A. R. H.
green
1 sentence2023Cite as 371 Or 82 (2023) 97 of scientific research suggesting that juveniles who have engaged in sexual misconduct are amenable to treatment, and he argues that legislative history demonstrates the legislature’s intent that reporting determinations under ORS 163A.030 will “follow the science” and “apply the best research available.” Thus, youth insists, it “is not reasonable for a court to make a decision about risk of reoffending that rejects both the well-established science about the statisti- cally very low risk of sexual reoffending by all adjudicated youth, and the professional process o | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Remme
green
2 sentences2020For the reasons expressed in State v. Remme, 173 Or App 546 , 565 & n 15, 23 P3d 374 (2001) (the state’s concession of error, the significance of the error to the defendant’s liberty interest, and the ease of correction on remand), we exercise our discretion to correct the error. 2020For the reasons expressed in State v. Remme, 173 Or App 546 , 565 & n 15, 23 P3d 374 (2001) (the state’s concession of error, the significance of the error to the defendant’s liberty interest, and the ease of correction on remand), we exercise our discretion to correct the error. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Stop Dump Coalition v. Yamhill County
green
1 sentence2019App. at 485 -86 , 391 P.3d 932 (applying the significance test to the specific practices on the McPhillips and Frease farms, including consideration of the conditions of approval). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
green
2 sentences2003This is clearly the significance of the requirement * * * that courts consider the whole record.'" 305 Or. at 354 , 752 P.2d 262 (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Bd., 340 U.S. 474, 487-88 , 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951)) (ellipsis in Younger ). 2003This is clearly the significance of the requirement * * * that courts consider the whole record.'" 305 Or. at 354 , 752 P.2d 262 (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Bd., 340 U.S. 474, 487-88 , 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951)) (ellipsis in Younger ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Younger v. City of Portland
green
2 sentences2003This is clearly the significance of the requirement * * * that courts consider the whole record.'" 305 Or. at 354 , 752 P.2d 262 (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Bd., 340 U.S. 474, 487-88 , 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951)) (ellipsis in Younger ). 2003This is clearly the significance of the requirement * * * that courts consider the whole record.'" 305 Or. at 354 , 752 P.2d 262 (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Bd., 340 U.S. 474, 487-88 , 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951)) (ellipsis in Younger ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Yates v. Evatt
green
2 sentences1992Id. 1992Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.