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 1922–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co.green1 sentence2019See Wrigley, 505 US at 233 (removing and replacing stale gum not ancillary to requesting sales); Chester A. Asher, Inc, 22 NJ Tax at 596 (accepting returns not ancillary to requesting sales). | 1 | 1 |
Riggs v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Co.green2 sentences1970In his comments from the bench at the conclusion of trial, the trial judge expressed his desire "to place squarely before the Oregon Supreme Court" the question "whether there must be prejudice shown and proven in the event of a material misrepresentation by an assured, be he a named insured, or a person who becomes an insured under the policy terms." In Riggs v. New Jersey Fidelity and Plate Glass Company, 126 Or. 404, at p. 413 , 270 P. 479, at p. 483 (1928), also a case involving an alleged defense that the insured failed to cooperate with the insurance company, this court stated: "In order 1970In his comments from the bench at the conclusion of trial, the trial judge expressed his desire "to place squarely before the Oregon Supreme Court" the question "whether there must be prejudice shown and proven in the event of a material misrepresentation by an assured, be he a named insured, or a person who becomes an insured under the policy terms." In Riggs v. New Jersey Fidelity and Plate Glass Company, 126 Or. 404, at p. 413 , 270 P. 479, at p. 483 (1928), also a case involving an alleged defense that the insured failed to cooperate with the insurance company, this court stated: "In order | 1 | 1 |
Sudbury v. Ambi Verwaltung Kommanditgesselschaft auf Aktiengreen2 sentences1928It is contended by the company that the clause in the policy, quoted above, in regard to domicile, restricts the jurisdiction, and limits the jurisdiction to enforce the conditions of the policy to the “Courts of Karlsruhe.” In Sudbury v. Ambi Verwaltung, etc., 213 App. Div. 98, 100 ( 210 N. Y. 1928It is contended by the company that the clause in the policy, quoted above, in regard to domicile, restricts the jurisdiction, and limits the jurisdiction to enforce the conditions of the policy to the “Courts of Karlsruhe.” In Sudbury v. Ambi Verwaltung, etc., 213 App. Div. 98, 100 ( 210 N. Y. | 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 BY & THROUGH HEALY v. Houston
green
1 sentence1983State ex rel Healy v. Houston, supra, 42 Or App at 289 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Employment Division
green
2 sentences1976A similar rule-violation issue was involved in Georgia-Pacific v. Employment Div., 21 Or App 135 , 533 P2d 829 (1975). 1976A similar rule-violation issue was involved in Georgia-Pacific v. Employment Div., 21 Or App 135 , 533 P2d 829 (1975). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Allegretto v. Oregon Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences1970In his comments from the bench at the conclusion of trial, the trial judge expressed his desire “to place squarely before the Oregon Supreme Court” the question “whether there must be prejudice shown and proven in the event of a material misrepresentation by an assured, be he a named insured, or a person who becomes an insured under the policy terms.” In Riggs v. New Jersey Fidelity and Plate Glass Company, 126 Or 404 , 270 P 479 (1928), also a case involving an alleged defense that the insured failed to cooperate with the insurance company, this court stated, at p 413: “In order for the answe 1970In his comments from the bench at the conclusion of trial, the trial judge expressed his desire “to place squarely before the Oregon Supreme Court” the question “whether there must be prejudice shown and proven in the event of a material misrepresentation by an assured, be he a named insured, or a person who becomes an insured under the policy terms.” In Riggs v. New Jersey Fidelity and Plate Glass Company, 126 Or 404 , 270 P 479 (1928), also a case involving an alleged defense that the insured failed to cooperate with the insurance company, this court stated, at p 413: “In order for the answe | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
green
1 sentence1967The result is an Act which requires cases tried under the Federal Act to be handled as though no doctrine of assumption of risk had ever existed.” 318 US at 63-64 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Case v. Chambers
green
2 sentences1959Consequently, the argument in the Company’s brief that the original property tax assessment upon which the taxes were initially paid is presumed to be correct (citing Case v. Chambers et al, 210 Or 680, 703 , 314 P2d 256 ) is without force, as the presumption, if one is to be indulged at all when considering a case like this, can not stand against the clear command of the statute. 1959Consequently, the argument in the Company’s brief that the original property tax assessment upon which the taxes were initially paid is presumed to be correct (citing Case v. Chambers et al, 210 Or 680, 703 , 314 P2d 256 ) is without force, as the presumption, if one is to be indulged at all when considering a case like this, can not stand against the clear command of the statute. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
French v. Mayor of Millville
green
1 sentence1928Law, 392 ( 49 Atl. 465 ), rendered under a similar constitutional provision *16 providing that no municipal corporation “shall directly or indirectly be the owner of any stock or bonds of any association or corporation.” In that case, although there was a contingent liability under the policy, the court said: “The scheme of mutual insurance in such association does not fasten upon the members any liability which municipal corporations may not with reasonable safety assume, for the limit of obligation is always fixed at the time the insurance is obtained and is rarely enforced beyond what would | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Unexcelled Fire-Wks. Co. v. Polites
green
2 sentences1922In Herring-Marvin Co. v. Smith, 43 Or. 315 ( 72 Pac. 704 ), this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Eakin, said: “Where a contract is executory, a party has the power, if he choose, to interdict performance by an explicit direction to that effect, and in such case he subjects himself to an action sounding in damages for a breach of the contract, and none will lie on the contract itself as for sale and delivery: 2 Mechem, Sales, §§ 1091, 1092; Unexcelled Fire-Work Co. v. Polites, 130 Pa. 536 ( 18 Atl. 1058 , 17 Am. 1922In Herring-Marvin Co. v. Smith, 43 Or. 315 ( 72 Pac. 704 ), this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Eakin, said: “Where a contract is executory, a party has the power, if he choose, to interdict performance by an explicit direction to that effect, and in such case he subjects himself to an action sounding in damages for a breach of the contract, and none will lie on the contract itself as for sale and delivery: 2 Mechem, Sales, §§ 1091, 1092; Unexcelled Fire-Work Co. v. Polites, 130 Pa. 536 ( 18 Atl. 1058 , 17 Am. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Herring-Marvin Co. v. Smith
green
2 sentences1922In Herring-Marvin Co. v. Smith, 43 Or. 315 ( 72 Pac. 704 ), this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Eakin, said: “Where a contract is executory, a party has the power, if he choose, to interdict performance by an explicit direction to that effect, and in such case he subjects himself to an action sounding in damages for a breach of the contract, and none will lie on the contract itself as for sale and delivery: 2 Mechem, Sales, §§ 1091, 1092; Unexcelled Fire-Work Co. v. Polites, 130 Pa. 536 ( 18 Atl. 1058 , 17 Am. 1922In Herring-Marvin Co. v. Smith, 43 Or. 315 ( 72 Pac. 704 ), this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Eakin, said: “Where a contract is executory, a party has the power, if he choose, to interdict performance by an explicit direction to that effect, and in such case he subjects himself to an action sounding in damages for a breach of the contract, and none will lie on the contract itself as for sale and delivery: 2 Mechem, Sales, §§ 1091, 1092; Unexcelled Fire-Work Co. v. Polites, 130 Pa. 536 ( 18 Atl. 1058 , 17 Am. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.