flexible standard (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

flexible standard in Oregon

9 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2021 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Massor v. Yatesgreen
or · 1931 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1943–1943
2 sentences

1943The rule is enunciated in the case of Massor v. Yates, 137 Or. 569, 572, 573 , 3 P. (2d) 784 , and, in commenting thereon, this court said: “ * * * This is a flexible rule and it does not make the landlord a guarantor of the safety of the tenant but obliges him only to use that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent person engaged in the operation of an apartment house would have exercised under similar circumstances.” In concluding our discussion of this branch of the case, we quote the following from Eestatement of the Law of Torts, vol. 2, section 357: “A lessor of land is subject to li

1943The rule is enunciated in the case of Massor v. Yates, 137 Or. 569, 572, 573 , 3 P. (2d) 784 , and, in commenting thereon, this court said: “ * * * This is a flexible rule and it does not make the landlord a guarantor of the safety of the tenant but obliges him only to use that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent person engaged in the operation of an apartment house would have exercised under similar circumstances.” In concluding our discussion of this branch of the case, we quote the following from Eestatement of the Law of Torts, vol. 2, section 357: “A lessor of land is subject to li

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Geist green
or · 1990
2 sentences

2017Instead, the court concluded that the flexible standard of “fundamental fairness” is the proper standard for deciding whether parents have received adequate repre- sentation in a termination case.6 Id. at 188-90 .

2017Instead, the court con- cluded that the flexible standard of “fundamental fairness” is the proper standard for deciding whether parents have received adequate representation in a termination case.6 Id. at 188-90 .

22017–2017
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Heitkamp red
scotus · 1992
1 sentence

2021Quill, 504 US at 307-08 .

12021–2021
Robinson v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Division neutral
orctapp · 2003
2 sentences

2018Accordingly, "[i]n the breath test context, we have ruled that the officer can insist that the test be conducted promptly. * * * In the urine test context, it is obvious that a more flexible standard must be applied." Robinson v. DMV , 191 Or.

2018App. 122 , 125-26, 80 P.3d 536 (2003).

12018–2018
Wilson v. Arkansas green
scotus · 1995
2 sentences

1995The Court noted that the common-law rule recognized that certain situations justified a failure to knock and announce before entry, such as where a threat of physical violence existed, where an officer was in pursuit of a recently escaped arrestee, or “where police officers have reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given[.]” Id. at 1918-19 .

1995The Fourth Amendment’s flexible requirement of reasonableness should not be read to mandate a rigid rule of announcement that ignores countervailing law enforcement interests.” Id. at 1918 .

11995–1995
Arizona v. Washington green
scotus · 1978
2 sentences

1979We believe, however, that even if cases involving the death or serious illness of the trial judge must be considered as within the "spectrum" as described in Arizona, so as to require application of the flexible standard of review as also described in that case, the facts of this case would place it at the "extreme end" of the "spectrum" as a case in which the trial judge would be allowed to exercise "broad discretion." ( See 434 U.S. at 509 , 98 S.Ct. 824 ) The record shows that Judge Dale did consider and reject the possible alternative of postponement of the trial, and for good reason becau

1979We believe, however, that even if cases involving the death or serious illness of the trial judge must be considered as within the "spectrum" as described in Arizona, so as to require application of the flexible standard of review as also described in that case, the facts of this case would place it at the "extreme end" of the "spectrum" as a case in which the trial judge would be allowed to exercise "broad discretion." ( See 434 U.S. at 509 , 98 S.Ct. 824 ) The record shows that Judge Dale did consider and reject the possible alternative of postponement of the trial, and for good reason becau

11979–1979
State v. Armstrong green
or · 1903
2 sentences

1977State v. Armstrong, 43 Or 207, 214-15 , 73 P 1022 (1903).

1977State v. Armstrong, 43 Or 207, 214-15 , 73 P 1022 (1903).

11977–1977
Matter of D. green
orctapp · 1976
1 sentence

1976Moreover, after the orders involved in this case were entered, the Court of Appeals overruled the strict rule of Wade in F. v. C., 24 Or App 601 , 547 P2d 175 , rev denied (1976), in which it adopted a more flexible rule requiring independent counsel when, in the judgment of the trial court, it is necessary in the particular case for the protection of the child’s interests.

11976–1976
F. v. C. green
orctapp · 1976
1 sentence

1976Moreover, after the orders involved in this case were entered, the Court of Appeals overruled the strict rule of Wade in F. v. C., 24 Or App 601 , 547 P2d 175 , rev denied (1976), in which it adopted a more flexible rule requiring independent counsel when, in the judgment of the trial court, it is necessary in the particular case for the protection of the child’s interests.

11976–1976

Where else courts name it

NY 169 (1937–2026) TX 127 (1973–2025) CT 107 (1978–2026) IL 64 (1961–2026) LA 52 (1963–2022) CA 51 (1896–2026) CO 50 (1964–2026) NJ 45 (1960–2025) MN 45 (1896–2025) PA 43 (1964–2025) MI 33 (1979–2026) RI 30 (1951–2023) FL 27 (1967–2025) VT 25 (1993–2026) WI 25 (1922–2022) OH 24 (1968–2025) MD 23 (1957–2024) NC 22 (1963–2025) MO 20 (1963–2017) MA 18 (1929–2014) WA 18 (1967–2016) AK 18 (1977–2023) DC 18 (1966–2022) NM 15 (1992–2010) MT 15 (1983–2024) UT 14 (2000–2023) DE 13 (1979–2022) IA 12 (1973–2024) NH 12 (1975–2021) ME 12 (1972–2023) HI 12 (1960–2010) KS 11 (1974–2016) AL 11 (1967–2007) NE 11 (1981–2024) IN 11 (1985–2025) OK 10 (1928–2019) ID 10 (1969–2022) AZ 10 (1973–2022) TN 9 (1981–2017) OR 9 (1943–2021) GA 8 (1967–2013) WV 7 (1963–2001) VA 7 (1979–2010) SD 6 (1990–2025) SC 6 (1998–2020) WY 5 (1982–2017) AR 5 (1990–2019) KY 4 (1979–2026) MS 4 (2004–2014) ND 3 (1989–2000) NV 2 (2000–2021)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check