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.
9 Oregon opinions name it 3 courts 1923–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2025The court announced the following test: “[I]n the context of UDITPA, reasonableness has at least three components: (1) the division of income fairly represents business activity and if applied uniformly would result in taxation of no more or no less than 100 percent of taxpayer’s income; (2) the division of income does not create or foster lack of uniformity among UDITPA jurisdictions; and (3) the division of income reflects the economic reality of the business activity engaged in by the taxpayer in Oregon.” Id. at 233-34 (emphasis in original). 2025The court announced the following test: “[I]n the context of UDITPA, reasonableness has at least three components: (1) the division of income fairly represents business activity and if applied uniformly would result in taxation of no more or no less than 100 percent of taxpayer’s income; (2) the division of income does not create or foster lack of uniformity among UDITPA jurisdictions; and (3) the division of income reflects the economic reality of the business activity engaged in by the taxpayer in Oregon.” Id. at 233-34 (emphasis in original). | 2 | 3 |
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2002The Court announced the following rule of law: " Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. " Id. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 (emphasis added). 2002The Court announced the following rule of law: " Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. " Id. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees, Council 75, Local 2043 v. City of Lebanon
green
1 sentence2017Cite as 360 Or 809 (2017) 829 In Heinz, the Court addressed a similar claim by an employer that it could not be held responsible for the unfair labor practices of several supervisors, because the employer had not authorized or ratified those employees’ conduct. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
McDonald v. Cruzen
neutral
1 sentence1955In the early Oregon Case of McDonald v. Cruzen, 2 Or 259, 260 , this court announced the following rule: “Upon appeal from a judgment upon demurrer below, it is the general rule that judgment of affirmance here is final; but this court will hold a discretionary control in cases where cause is alleged for re-hearing, or for further proceedings below.” In Williams v. Pacific Surety Co., 66 Or 151, 158 , 127 P 145 ; 131 P 1021 ; 132 P 959 ; 133 P 1186 , tMs court again considered and applied the above rule. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Williams v. Pacific Surety Co.
green
2 sentences1955In the early Oregon Case of McDonald v. Cruzen, 2 Or 259, 260 , this court announced the following rule: “Upon appeal from a judgment upon demurrer below, it is the general rule that judgment of affirmance here is final; but this court will hold a discretionary control in cases where cause is alleged for re-hearing, or for further proceedings below.” In Williams v. Pacific Surety Co., 66 Or 151, 158 , 127 P 145 ; 131 P 1021 ; 132 P 959 ; 133 P 1186 , tMs court again considered and applied the above rule. 1955In the early Oregon Case of McDonald v. Cruzen, 2 Or 259, 260 , this court announced the following rule: “Upon appeal from a judgment upon demurrer below, it is the general rule that judgment of affirmance here is final; but this court will hold a discretionary control in cases where cause is alleged for re-hearing, or for further proceedings below.” In Williams v. Pacific Surety Co., 66 Or 151, 158 , 127 P 145 ; 131 P 1021 ; 132 P 959 ; 133 P 1186 , tMs court again considered and applied the above rule. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
School Dist. No. 1 v. Astoria Const. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1930In view of this fact, we note the case of White v. White, 100 Or. 387 ( 190 P. 969 , 197 P. 1080 ), where this court announced the following doctrine: “A decree of divorce should not be granted when the parties have mutually contributed to the conditions complained of (local citation).” Another interesting case bearing upon this subject is the case of Thomsen v. Thomsen, 128 Or. 622 ( 275 P. 673 ), where it is written: “In Carmichael v. Carmichael, 106 Or. 198 ( 211 P. 916 ), this court said: ‘The doctrine of recrimination is an application of the wholesome maxim in equity that he who comes in | 1 | 1930–1930 |
White v. White
green
1 sentence1930In view of this fact, we note the case of White v. White, 100 Or. 387 ( 190 P. 969 , 197 P. 1080 ), where this court announced the following doctrine: “A decree of divorce should not be granted when the parties have mutually contributed to the conditions complained of (local citation).” Another interesting case bearing upon this subject is the case of Thomsen v. Thomsen, 128 Or. 622 ( 275 P. 673 ), where it is written: “In Carmichael v. Carmichael, 106 Or. 198 ( 211 P. 916 ), this court said: ‘The doctrine of recrimination is an application of the wholesome maxim in equity that he who comes in | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Hawley v. Hawley
green
2 sentences1930In view of this fact, we note the case of White v. White, 100 Or. 387 ( 190 P. 969 , 197 P. 1080 ), where this court announced the following doctrine: “A decree of divorce should not be granted when the parties have mutually contributed to the conditions complained of (local citation).” Another interesting case bearing upon this subject is the case of Thomsen v. Thomsen, 128 Or. 622 ( 275 P. 673 ), where it is written: “In Carmichael v. Carmichael, 106 Or. 198 ( 211 P. 916 ), this court said: ‘The doctrine of recrimination is an application of the wholesome maxim in equity that he who comes in 1930In view of this fact, we note the case of White v. White, 100 Or. 387 ( 190 P. 969 , 197 P. 1080 ), where this court announced the following doctrine: “A decree of divorce should not be granted when the parties have mutually contributed to the conditions complained of (local citation).” Another interesting case bearing upon this subject is the case of Thomsen v. Thomsen, 128 Or. 622 ( 275 P. 673 ), where it is written: “In Carmichael v. Carmichael, 106 Or. 198 ( 211 P. 916 ), this court said: ‘The doctrine of recrimination is an application of the wholesome maxim in equity that he who comes in | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Carmichael v. Carmichael
green
2 sentences1930In view of this fact, we note the case of White v. White, 100 Or. 387 ( 190 P. 969 , 197 P. 1080 ), where this court announced the following doctrine: “A decree of divorce should not be granted when the parties have mutually contributed to the conditions complained of (local citation).” Another interesting case bearing upon this subject is the case of Thomsen v. Thomsen, 128 Or. 622 ( 275 P. 673 ), where it is written: “In Carmichael v. Carmichael, 106 Or. 198 ( 211 P. 916 ), this court said: ‘The doctrine of recrimination is an application of the wholesome maxim in equity that he who comes in 1930In view of this fact, we note the case of White v. White, 100 Or. 387 ( 190 P. 969 , 197 P. 1080 ), where this court announced the following doctrine: “A decree of divorce should not be granted when the parties have mutually contributed to the conditions complained of (local citation).” Another interesting case bearing upon this subject is the case of Thomsen v. Thomsen, 128 Or. 622 ( 275 P. 673 ), where it is written: “In Carmichael v. Carmichael, 106 Or. 198 ( 211 P. 916 ), this court said: ‘The doctrine of recrimination is an application of the wholesome maxim in equity that he who comes in | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Thomsen v. Thomsen
green
2 sentences1930In view of this fact, we note the case of White v. White, 100 Or. 387 ( 190 P. 969 , 197 P. 1080 ), where this court announced the following doctrine: “A decree of divorce should not be granted when the parties have mutually contributed to the conditions complained of (local citation).” Another interesting case bearing upon this subject is the case of Thomsen v. Thomsen, 128 Or. 622 ( 275 P. 673 ), where it is written: “In Carmichael v. Carmichael, 106 Or. 198 ( 211 P. 916 ), this court said: ‘The doctrine of recrimination is an application of the wholesome maxim in equity that he who comes in 1930In view of this fact, we note the case of White v. White, 100 Or. 387 ( 190 P. 969 , 197 P. 1080 ), where this court announced the following doctrine: “A decree of divorce should not be granted when the parties have mutually contributed to the conditions complained of (local citation).” Another interesting case bearing upon this subject is the case of Thomsen v. Thomsen, 128 Or. 622 ( 275 P. 673 ), where it is written: “In Carmichael v. Carmichael, 106 Or. 198 ( 211 P. 916 ), this court said: ‘The doctrine of recrimination is an application of the wholesome maxim in equity that he who comes in | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Billion v. Billion
neutral
2 sentences1930In view of this fact, we note the case of White v. White, 100 Or. 387 ( 190 P. 969 , 197 P. 1080 ), where this court announced the following doctrine: “A decree of divorce should not be granted when the parties have mutually contributed to the conditions complained of (local citation).” Another interesting case bearing upon this subject is the case of Thomsen v. Thomsen, 128 Or. 622 ( 275 P. 673 ), where it is written: “In Carmichael v. Carmichael, 106 Or. 198 ( 211 P. 916 ), this court said: ‘The doctrine of recrimination is an application of the wholesome maxim in equity that he who comes in 1930In view of this fact, we note the case of White v. White, 100 Or. 387 ( 190 P. 969 , 197 P. 1080 ), where this court announced the following doctrine: “A decree of divorce should not be granted when the parties have mutually contributed to the conditions complained of (local citation).” Another interesting case bearing upon this subject is the case of Thomsen v. Thomsen, 128 Or. 622 ( 275 P. 673 ), where it is written: “In Carmichael v. Carmichael, 106 Or. 198 ( 211 P. 916 ), this court said: ‘The doctrine of recrimination is an application of the wholesome maxim in equity that he who comes in | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Hill v. Hill
neutral
2 sentences1930In view of this fact, we note the case of White v. White, 100 Or. 387 ( 190 P. 969 , 197 P. 1080 ), where this court announced the following doctrine: “A decree of divorce should not be granted when the parties have mutually contributed to the conditions complained of (local citation).” Another interesting case bearing upon this subject is the case of Thomsen v. Thomsen, 128 Or. 622 ( 275 P. 673 ), where it is written: “In Carmichael v. Carmichael, 106 Or. 198 ( 211 P. 916 ), this court said: ‘The doctrine of recrimination is an application of the wholesome maxim in equity that he who comes in 1930In view of this fact, we note the case of White v. White, 100 Or. 387 ( 190 P. 969 , 197 P. 1080 ), where this court announced the following doctrine: “A decree of divorce should not be granted when the parties have mutually contributed to the conditions complained of (local citation).” Another interesting case bearing upon this subject is the case of Thomsen v. Thomsen, 128 Or. 622 ( 275 P. 673 ), where it is written: “In Carmichael v. Carmichael, 106 Or. 198 ( 211 P. 916 ), this court said: ‘The doctrine of recrimination is an application of the wholesome maxim in equity that he who comes in | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Winn v. Taylor
green
2 sentences1924“Mr. Haney: For causes mentioned in the contract.” This court announced the following doctrine in Turning v. Walz, 42 Or. 109 (Syl. 2) ( 71 Pac. 662 ): “Where a case has been tried on a certain theory, with the acquiescence of the parties, it must be so continued on appeal, and the Supreme Court will not permit a change of position in that tribunal.” To like effect see Swank v. Swank, 37 Or. 439 ( 61 Pac. 846 ); Cobb v. Peters, 68 Or. 14 ( 136 Pac. 656 ); Winn v. Taylor, 98 Or. 556 ( 190 Pac. 342 , 194 Pac. 857 ). 1924“Mr. Haney: For causes mentioned in the contract.” This court announced the following doctrine in Turning v. Walz, 42 Or. 109 (Syl. 2) ( 71 Pac. 662 ): “Where a case has been tried on a certain theory, with the acquiescence of the parties, it must be so continued on appeal, and the Supreme Court will not permit a change of position in that tribunal.” To like effect see Swank v. Swank, 37 Or. 439 ( 61 Pac. 846 ); Cobb v. Peters, 68 Or. 14 ( 136 Pac. 656 ); Winn v. Taylor, 98 Or. 556 ( 190 Pac. 342 , 194 Pac. 857 ). | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Swank v. Swank
green
2 sentences1924“Mr. Haney: For causes mentioned in the contract.” This court announced the following doctrine in Turning v. Walz, 42 Or. 109 (Syl. 2) ( 71 Pac. 662 ): “Where a case has been tried on a certain theory, with the acquiescence of the parties, it must be so continued on appeal, and the Supreme Court will not permit a change of position in that tribunal.” To like effect see Swank v. Swank, 37 Or. 439 ( 61 Pac. 846 ); Cobb v. Peters, 68 Or. 14 ( 136 Pac. 656 ); Winn v. Taylor, 98 Or. 556 ( 190 Pac. 342 , 194 Pac. 857 ). 1924“Mr. Haney: For causes mentioned in the contract.” This court announced the following doctrine in Turning v. Walz, 42 Or. 109 (Syl. 2) ( 71 Pac. 662 ): “Where a case has been tried on a certain theory, with the acquiescence of the parties, it must be so continued on appeal, and the Supreme Court will not permit a change of position in that tribunal.” To like effect see Swank v. Swank, 37 Or. 439 ( 61 Pac. 846 ); Cobb v. Peters, 68 Or. 14 ( 136 Pac. 656 ); Winn v. Taylor, 98 Or. 556 ( 190 Pac. 342 , 194 Pac. 857 ). | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Durning v. Walz.
green
2 sentences1924“Mr. Haney: For causes mentioned in the contract.” This court announced the following doctrine in Turning v. Walz, 42 Or. 109 (Syl. 2) ( 71 Pac. 662 ): “Where a case has been tried on a certain theory, with the acquiescence of the parties, it must be so continued on appeal, and the Supreme Court will not permit a change of position in that tribunal.” To like effect see Swank v. Swank, 37 Or. 439 ( 61 Pac. 846 ); Cobb v. Peters, 68 Or. 14 ( 136 Pac. 656 ); Winn v. Taylor, 98 Or. 556 ( 190 Pac. 342 , 194 Pac. 857 ). 1924“Mr. Haney: For causes mentioned in the contract.” This court announced the following doctrine in Turning v. Walz, 42 Or. 109 (Syl. 2) ( 71 Pac. 662 ): “Where a case has been tried on a certain theory, with the acquiescence of the parties, it must be so continued on appeal, and the Supreme Court will not permit a change of position in that tribunal.” To like effect see Swank v. Swank, 37 Or. 439 ( 61 Pac. 846 ); Cobb v. Peters, 68 Or. 14 ( 136 Pac. 656 ); Winn v. Taylor, 98 Or. 556 ( 190 Pac. 342 , 194 Pac. 857 ). | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Cobb v. Peters
neutral
2 sentences1924“Mr. Haney: For causes mentioned in the contract.” This court announced the following doctrine in Turning v. Walz, 42 Or. 109 (Syl. 2) ( 71 Pac. 662 ): “Where a case has been tried on a certain theory, with the acquiescence of the parties, it must be so continued on appeal, and the Supreme Court will not permit a change of position in that tribunal.” To like effect see Swank v. Swank, 37 Or. 439 ( 61 Pac. 846 ); Cobb v. Peters, 68 Or. 14 ( 136 Pac. 656 ); Winn v. Taylor, 98 Or. 556 ( 190 Pac. 342 , 194 Pac. 857 ). 1924“Mr. Haney: For causes mentioned in the contract.” This court announced the following doctrine in Turning v. Walz, 42 Or. 109 (Syl. 2) ( 71 Pac. 662 ): “Where a case has been tried on a certain theory, with the acquiescence of the parties, it must be so continued on appeal, and the Supreme Court will not permit a change of position in that tribunal.” To like effect see Swank v. Swank, 37 Or. 439 ( 61 Pac. 846 ); Cobb v. Peters, 68 Or. 14 ( 136 Pac. 656 ); Winn v. Taylor, 98 Or. 556 ( 190 Pac. 342 , 194 Pac. 857 ). | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Southern Oregon Co. v. Port of Bandon
neutral
2 sentences1923In State ex rel. v. Port of Bay City, 64 Or. 139 ( 129 Pac. 496 ), this court announced the following rule: “The finding of the County Court that the port had been duly and legally organized and incorporated and the entry of this finding in the journal, was a final adjudication of every fact necessary under the law to constitute a valid corporation, including the location of its boundaries, and the matter sought to be litigated here is res adjudicata.” This rule was followed in Southern Oregon Co. v. Port of Bandon, 91 Or. 308 ( 178 Pac. 215 ). 1923In State ex rel. v. Port of Bay City, 64 Or. 139 ( 129 Pac. 496 ), this court announced the following rule: “The finding of the County Court that the port had been duly and legally organized and incorporated and the entry of this finding in the journal, was a final adjudication of every fact necessary under the law to constitute a valid corporation, including the location of its boundaries, and the matter sought to be litigated here is res adjudicata.” This rule was followed in Southern Oregon Co. v. Port of Bandon, 91 Or. 308 ( 178 Pac. 215 ). | 1 | 1923–1923 |
State v. Port of Bay City
green
2 sentences1923In State ex rel. v. Port of Bay City, 64 Or. 139 ( 129 Pac. 496 ), this court announced the following rule: “The finding of the County Court that the port had been duly and legally organized and incorporated and the entry of this finding in the journal, was a final adjudication of every fact necessary under the law to constitute a valid corporation, including the location of its boundaries, and the matter sought to be litigated here is res adjudicata.” This rule was followed in Southern Oregon Co. v. Port of Bandon, 91 Or. 308 ( 178 Pac. 215 ). 1923In State ex rel. v. Port of Bay City, 64 Or. 139 ( 129 Pac. 496 ), this court announced the following rule: “The finding of the County Court that the port had been duly and legally organized and incorporated and the entry of this finding in the journal, was a final adjudication of every fact necessary under the law to constitute a valid corporation, including the location of its boundaries, and the matter sought to be litigated here is res adjudicata.” This rule was followed in Southern Oregon Co. v. Port of Bandon, 91 Or. 308 ( 178 Pac. 215 ). | 1 | 1923–1923 |
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.