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 2 courts 1904–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2013On that issue, the court held: “Without a showing that the administration of [those two charging procedures] in fact denied [the] defendant individually, or a class to which he belongs, the equal privilege of a preliminary hearing with other citizens of the state similarly situated, the circuit court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment.” Id. at 243. 1983We held that the attack failed ‘[wjithout a showing that the administration of Or Const art VII, § 5 and ORS 135.070-135.185 in fact denied defendant individually, or a class to which he belongs, the equal privilege of a preliminary hearing with other citizens of the state similarly situated.’ State v. Clark, 291 Or at 243. | 3 | 3 |
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Longgreen2 sentences1982The right to control its order of business and to so conduct the same that the rights of all litigants may properly be safeguarded has always been recognized as inherent in courts, and to strip them of that authority would necessarily render them so impotent and useless as to leave little excuse for their existence and place in the hands of the legislative branch of the state, power and control never contemplated by the Constitution.” Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Long, 122 Okla 86, 251 P 486, 489 (1926). 1982The right to control its order of business and to so conduct the same that the rights of all litigants may properly be safeguarded has always been recognized as inherent in courts, and to strip them of that authority would necessarily render them so impotent and useless as to leave little excuse for their existence and place in the hands of the legislative branch of the state, power and control never contemplated by the Constitution." Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Long, 122 Okl. 86 , 251 P. 486, 489 (1926). | 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. Goacher
green
2 sentences2026“To bring an individual-based claim under Article I, section 20, a defen- dant must initially show that the government in fact denied defendant individually an equal privilege with other citizens of the state similarly situated.” State v. Goacher, 303 Or App 783, 790 , 466 P3d 1047 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2026“To bring an individual-based claim under Article I, section 20, a defen- dant must initially show that the government in fact denied defendant individually an equal privilege with other citizens of the state similarly situated.” State v. Goacher, 303 Or App 783, 790 , 466 P3d 1047 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Savastano
green
2 sentences2022Defendant invokes State v. Savastano, 354 Or 64, 96 , 309 P3d 1083 (2013), which made clear that a person can bring an individ- ual claim that the state, in its exercise of prosecutorial dis- cretion, “in fact denied defendant individually * * * an equal privilege * * * with other citizens of the state similarly situ- ated” in violation of the privileges and immunities clause. 2022Defendant invokes State v. Savastano, 354 Or 64, 96 , 309 P3d 1083 (2013), which made clear that a person can bring an individ- ual claim that the state, in its exercise of prosecutorial dis- cretion, “in fact denied defendant individually * * * an equal privilege * * * with other citizens of the state similarly situ- ated” in violation of the privileges and immunities clause. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Long
neutral
1 sentence1982The right to control its order of business and to so conduct the same that the rights of all litigants may properly be safeguarded has always been recognized as inherent in courts, and to strip them of that authority would necessarily render them so impotent and useless as to leave little excuse for their existence and place in the hands of the legislative branch of the state, power and control never contemplated by the Constitution." Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Long, 122 Okl. 86 , 251 P. 486, 489 (1926). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Muller
green
2 sentences1914Water rights, like all other rights, are subject to such reasonable regulations as are essential to the general welfare, peace and good order of the citizens of the state, to the end that the use of water by one, however absolute and unqualified his right thereto, shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others entitled to the equal privilege of using water from the same source, nor injurious to the rights of the public: State v. Muller, 48 Or. 252 ( 85 Pac. 855 , 120 Am. 1914Water rights, like all other rights, are subject to such reasonable regulations as are essential to the general welfare, peace and good order of the citizens of the state, to the end that the use of water by one, however absolute and unqualified his right thereto, shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others entitled to the equal privilege of using water from the same source, nor injurious to the rights of the public: State v. Muller, 48 Or. 252 ( 85 Pac. 855 , 120 Am. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Butchers' Union Slaughter-House & Live-Stock Landing Co. v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing & Slaughter-House Co.
green
1 sentence1904In Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City, 111 U. S. 746 (4 Sup. Ct. 652), the monopoly thus created was destroyed by a statute passed in pursuance of an amendment to the Constitution of Louisiana, whereby an equal privilege was granted to another corporation. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
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.