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 1954–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Caren v. Providence Health Sys. Or. (In re Caren)green1 sentence2022See Caren, 365 Or at 487 (“We conclude that employers obtain the benefit of that exception only by issuing a denial of the ‘combined condition’ and following the process that the legislature has specifically provided in ORS 656.268(1)(b) for reducing the worker’s permanent par- tial disability.”). | 1 | 1 |
Dunning v. Corrections Facility Siting Authoritygreen2 sentences1999See Dunning v. Corrections Facility Siting Authority, 325 Or 269 , 277 n 4, 935 P2d 1209 (1997), and n 1 above; Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132 , 881 P2d 119 (1994). 6 The example in the rule clarifies that evidence of residency for other purposes is not controlling in the determination of residency for tuition purposes. 1999See Dunning v. Corrections Facility Siting Authority, 325 Or 269 , 277 n 4, 935 P2d 1209 (1997), and n 1 above; Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132 , 881 P2d 119 (1994). 6 The example in the rule clarifies that evidence of residency for other purposes is not controlling in the determination of residency for tuition purposes. | 1 | 1 |
Oregon Aqua-Foods, Inc. v. Paulusgreen2 sentences1990An example of this exception is Kays v. McCall, 244 Or 361 , 481 P2d 511 (1966), in which the petitions for the initiative measure did not have the number of supporting certified signatures required by Art IV, § 1, Oregon Constitution.” See also Oregon Aqua-Foods v. Paulus, 296 Or 469 , 472 n 3, 676 P2d 870 (1984) (“[T]he efficacy of [a] proposed measure, should it be adopted by the people, is not before [this court in a ballot title review proceeding].”). 1990An example of this exception is Kays v. McCall, 244 Or 361 , 481 P2d 511 (1966), in which the petitions for the initiative measure did not have the number of supporting certified signatures required by Art IV, § 1, Oregon Constitution.” See also Oregon Aqua-Foods v. Paulus, 296 Or 469 , 472 n 3, 676 P2d 870 (1984) (“[T]he efficacy of [a] proposed measure, should it be adopted by the people, is not before [this court in a ballot title review proceeding].”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ojeda
green
2 sentences2006As an example of that principle, McCormick cites People v. Ojeda, 745 P2d 274 (Colo App 1987), in which the court found admissible a statement by the victim regarding a conversation with the defendant that had occurred five months before the attack. 1997As an example of that principle, McCormick cites People v. Ojeda, 745 P2d 274 (Colo App 1987), in which the court found admissible a statement by the victim regarding a conversation with the defendant that had occurred five months before the attack. | 2 | 1997–2006 |
Kays v. McCall
green
2 sentences1990An example of this exception is Kays v. McCall, 244 Or 361 , 481 P2d 511 (1966), in which the petitions for the initiative measure did not have the number of supporting certified signatures required by Art IV, § 1, Oregon Constitution.” See also Oregon Aqua-Foods v. Paulus, 296 Or 469 , 472 n 3, 676 P2d 870 (1984) (“[T]he efficacy of [a] proposed measure, should it be adopted by the people, is not before [this court in a ballot title review proceeding].”). 1978An example of this exception is Kays v. McCall, 244 Or 361 , 418 P2d 511 (1966), in which the petitions for the initiative measure did not have the number of supporting certified signatures required by Art IV, § 1, Oregon Constitution. | 2 | 1978–1990 |
Don't Waste Oregon Committee v. Energy Facility Siting Council
green
2 sentences1999See Dunning v. Corrections Facility Siting Authority, 325 Or 269 , 277 n 4, 935 P2d 1209 (1997), and n 1 above; Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132 , 881 P2d 119 (1994). 6 The example in the rule clarifies that evidence of residency for other purposes is not controlling in the determination of residency for tuition purposes. 1999See Dunning v. Corrections Facility Siting Authority, 325 Or 269 , 277 n 4, 935 P2d 1209 (1997), and n 1 above; Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132 , 881 P2d 119 (1994). 6 The example in the rule clarifies that evidence of residency for other purposes is not controlling in the determination of residency for tuition purposes. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Verdugo
green
1 sentence1990An example of this exception is Kays v. McCall, 244 Or 361 , 481 P2d 511 (1966), in which the petitions for the initiative measure did not have the number of supporting certified signatures required by Art IV, § 1, Oregon Constitution.” See also Oregon Aqua-Foods v. Paulus, 296 Or 469 , 472 n 3, 676 P2d 870 (1984) (“[T]he efficacy of [a] proposed measure, should it be adopted by the people, is not before [this court in a ballot title review proceeding].”). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Oregon Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v. Peterson
green
2 sentences1980Newspaper Pub. v. Peterson, 244 Or. 116 , 415 P.2d 21 (1966). 1980Newspaper Pub. v. Peterson, 244 Or. 116 , 415 P.2d 21 (1966). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Angelos v. State Board of Dental Examiners
green
2 sentences1980An example is the rule against advertising that was sustained in Angelos v. Bd. of Dental Examiners, 244 Or. 1 , 414 P.2d 335 (1966), and compare Ore. 1980An example is the rule against advertising that was sustained in Angelos v. Bd. of Dental Examiners, 244 Or. 1 , 414 P.2d 335 (1966), and compare Ore. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Stewart v. Cupp
green
2 sentences1974Stewart v. Cupp, 12 Or App 167 , 506 P2d 503 (1973); cf., State v. Wickenheiser, 3 Or App 509 , 475 P2d 422 (1970). 1974Stewart v. Cupp, 12 Or. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. Wickenheiser
neutral
2 sentences1974Stewart v. Cupp, 12 Or App 167 , 506 P2d 503 (1973); cf., State v. Wickenheiser, 3 Or App 509 , 475 P2d 422 (1970). 1974Stewart v. Cupp, 12 Or App 167 , 506 P2d 503 (1973); cf., State v. Wickenheiser, 3 Or App 509 , 475 P2d 422 (1970). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Hanscom v. Irwin
green
2 sentences1954Hanscom v. Irwin, 186 Or 541 , 208 P2d 330 , is an example of an exception to the general rule. 1954Hanscom v. Irwin, 186 Or 541 , 208 P2d 330 , is an example of an exception to the general rule. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.