9 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Geriggreen2 sentences2022See State v. Gerig, 297 Or App 884, 885 , 444 P3d 1145 (2019), rev’d in part on other grounds, 368 Or 513 , 493 P3d 521 (2021) (rejecting, based on Phelps, defendant’s plain error argu- ment that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on first-degree rape and first-degree sexual abuse charges that it was required to find that defendant knew that the victim was incapable of consent due to physical helplessness, mental incapacity, or mental defect); State v. Nyembo, 292 Or App 215 , 418 P3d 784 , rev den, 363 Or 744 (2018) (per curiam, citing Phelps). 2022See State v. Gerig, 297 Or App 884, 885 , 444 P3d 1145 (2019), rev’d in part on other grounds, 368 Or 513 , 493 P3d 521 (2021) (rejecting, based on Phelps, defendant’s plain error argu- ment that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on first-degree rape and first-degree sexual abuse charges that it was required to find that defendant knew that the victim was incapable of consent due to physical helplessness, mental incapacity, or mental defect); State v. Nyembo, 292 Or App 215 , 418 P3d 784 , rev den, 363 Or 744 (2018) (per curiam, citing Phelps). | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez v. Barbo MacHinery Co.green2 sentences2015Hernandez v. Barbo Machinery Co., 327 Or 99, 105-07, 957 P2d 147 (1998). 2015Hernandez v. Barbo Machinery Co., 327 Or 99, 105-07, 957 P2d 147 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chang Hwan Chogreen2 sentences2011Because of the possibility of those competing inferences, this court has concluded that “statutory silence alone is not a sufficiently clear indication of legislative intent to dispense with a culpable mental state.” Rutley, 343 Or at 375 ; see also State v. Cho, 297 Or 195, 201 , 681 P2d 1152 (1984) (“The mere enactment of a crime without an expressly required culpable mental state is insufficient to establish such a clear indication.”). 2011Because of the possibility of those competing inferences, this court has concluded that “statutory silence alone is not a sufficiently clear indication of legislative intent to dispense with a culpable mental state.” Rutley, 343 Or at 375 ; see also State v. Cho, 297 Or 195, 201 , 681 P2d 1152 (1984) (“The mere enactment of a crime without an expressly required culpable mental state is insufficient to establish such a clear indication.”). | 1 | 1 |
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industriesgreen1 sentence2005See PGE, 317 Or at 611 (use of a term in one provision and not in another provision of the same statute indicates a purposeful omission). | 1 | 1 |
Sappenfield v. Main Street & Agricultural Park Railroadgreen2 sentences1915Co., 91 Cal. 48, 57 ( 27 Pac. 590, 592 ), where it is said: “It is a well-settled rule that when an appliance or machine, not obviously dangerous, has been in daily use for a long time, and has uniformly proved safe and efficient, its use may be continued without the imputation of imprudence or carelessness.” The rule thus referred to may be controlling in some cases, but the omission from the instruction challenged of the phrase “not obviously dangerous,” as set forth in a part of the opinion quoted, renders the charge complained of inapplicable. 1915Co., 91 Cal. 48, 57 ( 27 Pac. 590, 592 ), where it is said: “It is a well-settled rule that when an appliance or machine, not obviously dangerous, has been in daily use for a long time, and has uniformly proved safe and efficient, its use may be continued without the imputation of imprudence or carelessness.” The rule thus referred to may be controlling in some cases, but the omission from the instruction challenged of the phrase “not obviously dangerous,” as set forth in a part of the opinion quoted, renders the charge complained of inapplicable. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nottage v. City of Portland
green
2 sentences1985Frederick v. Douglas Co. et al, 176 Or 54, 66-67 , 155 P2d 925 [(1945)]; Smith v. Cameron et al, 123 Or 501, 506-507 , 262 P 946 [(1928)]; Nottage v. City of Portland, 35 Or 539, 548 , 58 P 883 , 76 Am St Rep 513 [(1899)]; 2 Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations (8th ed) 775-776; 16A CJS 131, Constitutional Law § 427; 11 Am Jur 1211-1212, Constitutional Law § 381. 1963Frederick v. Douglas Co. et al, 176 Or 54, 66-67 , 155 P2d 925 ; Smith v. Cameron et al, 123 Or 501, 506-507 , 262 P 946 ; Nottage v. City of Portland, 35 Or 539, 548 , 58 P 883 , 76 Am St Rep 513; 2 Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations (8th ed) 775-776; 16A CJS 131, Constitutional Law §427; 11 Am Jur 1211-1212, Constitutional Law § 381. | 2 | 1963–1985 |
Smith v. Cameron
green
2 sentences1985Frederick v. Douglas Co. et al, 176 Or 54, 66-67 , 155 P2d 925 [(1945)]; Smith v. Cameron et al, 123 Or 501, 506-507 , 262 P 946 [(1928)]; Nottage v. City of Portland, 35 Or 539, 548 , 58 P 883 , 76 Am St Rep 513 [(1899)]; 2 Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations (8th ed) 775-776; 16A CJS 131, Constitutional Law § 427; 11 Am Jur 1211-1212, Constitutional Law § 381. 1985Frederick v. Douglas Co. et al, 176 Or 54, 66-67 , 155 P2d 925 [(1945)]; Smith v. Cameron et al, 123 Or 501, 506-507 , 262 P 946 [(1928)]; Nottage v. City of Portland, 35 Or 539, 548 , 58 P 883 , 76 Am St Rep 513 [(1899)]; 2 Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations (8th ed) 775-776; 16A CJS 131, Constitutional Law § 427; 11 Am Jur 1211-1212, Constitutional Law § 381. | 2 | 1963–1985 |
Frederick v. Douglas County
green
2 sentences1985Frederick v. Douglas Co. et al, 176 Or 54, 66-67 , 155 P2d 925 [(1945)]; Smith v. Cameron et al, 123 Or 501, 506-507 , 262 P 946 [(1928)]; Nottage v. City of Portland, 35 Or 539, 548 , 58 P 883 , 76 Am St Rep 513 [(1899)]; 2 Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations (8th ed) 775-776; 16A CJS 131, Constitutional Law § 427; 11 Am Jur 1211-1212, Constitutional Law § 381. 1985Frederick v. Douglas Co. et al, 176 Or 54, 66-67 , 155 P2d 925 [(1945)]; Smith v. Cameron et al, 123 Or 501, 506-507 , 262 P 946 [(1928)]; Nottage v. City of Portland, 35 Or 539, 548 , 58 P 883 , 76 Am St Rep 513 [(1899)]; 2 Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations (8th ed) 775-776; 16A CJS 131, Constitutional Law § 427; 11 Am Jur 1211-1212, Constitutional Law § 381. | 2 | 1963–1985 |
State v. Nyembo
neutral
2 sentences2022See State v. Gerig, 297 Or App 884, 885 , 444 P3d 1145 (2019), rev’d in part on other grounds, 368 Or 513 , 493 P3d 521 (2021) (rejecting, based on Phelps, defendant’s plain error argu- ment that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on first-degree rape and first-degree sexual abuse charges that it was required to find that defendant knew that the victim was incapable of consent due to physical helplessness, mental incapacity, or mental defect); State v. Nyembo, 292 Or App 215 , 418 P3d 784 , rev den, 363 Or 744 (2018) (per curiam, citing Phelps). 2022See State v. Gerig, 297 Or App 884, 885 , 444 P3d 1145 (2019), rev’d in part on other grounds, 368 Or 513 , 493 P3d 521 (2021) (rejecting, based on Phelps, defendant’s plain error argu- ment that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on first-degree rape and first-degree sexual abuse charges that it was required to find that defendant knew that the victim was incapable of consent due to physical helplessness, mental incapacity, or mental defect); State v. Nyembo, 292 Or App 215 , 418 P3d 784 , rev den, 363 Or 744 (2018) (per curiam, citing Phelps). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Dillard v. Brown
green
1 sentence2022See State v. Gerig, 297 Or App 884, 885 , 444 P3d 1145 (2019), rev’d in part on other grounds, 368 Or 513 , 493 P3d 521 (2021) (rejecting, based on Phelps, defendant’s plain error argu- ment that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on first-degree rape and first-degree sexual abuse charges that it was required to find that defendant knew that the victim was incapable of consent due to physical helplessness, mental incapacity, or mental defect); State v. Nyembo, 292 Or App 215 , 418 P3d 784 , rev den, 363 Or 744 (2018) (per curiam, citing Phelps). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Haltom
green
2 sentences2022Nonetheless, on appeal, he contends that the omission of that instruction is plain error under State v. Simonov, 358 Or 531 , 368 P3d 11 (2016), and State v. Haltom, 366 Or 791 , 472 P3d 246 (2020), and that we should exercise our discretion under ORAP 5.45(1) to correct it.4 The state responds that defendant’s argument is foreclosed by State v. Phelps, 141 Or App 555, 558 , 902 P2d 1098 , rev den, 324 Or 306 (1996) (discussed below), which held contrary to defendant’s position, noting also that we have adhered to Phelps after Simonov was decided. 2022Nonetheless, on appeal, he contends that the omission of that instruction is plain error under State v. Simonov, 358 Or 531 , 368 P3d 11 (2016), and State v. Haltom, 366 Or 791 , 472 P3d 246 (2020), and that we should exercise our discretion under ORAP 5.45(1) to correct it.4 The state responds that defendant’s argument is foreclosed by State v. Phelps, 141 Or App 555, 558 , 902 P2d 1098 , rev den, 324 Or 306 (1996) (discussed below), which held contrary to defendant’s position, noting also that we have adhered to Phelps after Simonov was decided. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Simonov
green
2 sentences2022Nonetheless, on appeal, he contends that the omission of that instruction is plain error under State v. Simonov, 358 Or 531 , 368 P3d 11 (2016), and State v. Haltom, 366 Or 791 , 472 P3d 246 (2020), and that we should exercise our discretion under ORAP 5.45(1) to correct it.4 The state responds that defendant’s argument is foreclosed by State v. Phelps, 141 Or App 555, 558 , 902 P2d 1098 , rev den, 324 Or 306 (1996) (discussed below), which held contrary to defendant’s position, noting also that we have adhered to Phelps after Simonov was decided. 2022Nonetheless, on appeal, he contends that the omission of that instruction is plain error under State v. Simonov, 358 Or 531 , 368 P3d 11 (2016), and State v. Haltom, 366 Or 791 , 472 P3d 246 (2020), and that we should exercise our discretion under ORAP 5.45(1) to correct it.4 The state responds that defendant’s argument is foreclosed by State v. Phelps, 141 Or App 555, 558 , 902 P2d 1098 , rev den, 324 Or 306 (1996) (discussed below), which held contrary to defendant’s position, noting also that we have adhered to Phelps after Simonov was decided. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Phelps
green
1 sentence2022Nonetheless, on appeal, he contends that the omission of that instruction is plain error under State v. Simonov, 358 Or 531 , 368 P3d 11 (2016), and State v. Haltom, 366 Or 791 , 472 P3d 246 (2020), and that we should exercise our discretion under ORAP 5.45(1) to correct it.4 The state responds that defendant’s argument is foreclosed by State v. Phelps, 141 Or App 555, 558 , 902 P2d 1098 , rev den, 324 Or 306 (1996) (discussed below), which held contrary to defendant’s position, noting also that we have adhered to Phelps after Simonov was decided. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Luce v. United States
green
2 sentences2019Under those circumstances, as 1 This court’s conclusion in Foster that the defendant was required to accept the trial court’s ruling, cross-examine the witness about the plea agreement, and allow the evidence of the polygraph condition to be admitted in order to estab- lish a reversible error on appeal is consistent with the approach adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Luce v. United States, 469 US 38 , 105 S Ct 460 , 83 L Ed 2d 443 (1984). 2019Under those circumstances, as 1 This court’s conclusion in Foster that the defendant was required to accept the trial court’s ruling, cross-examine the witness about the plea agreement, and allow the evidence of the polygraph condition to be admitted in order to estab- lish a reversible error on appeal is consistent with the approach adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Luce v. United States, 469 US 38 , 105 S Ct 460 , 83 L Ed 2d 443 (1984). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Rutley
green
1 sentence2011Because of the possibility of those competing inferences, this court has concluded that “statutory silence alone is not a sufficiently clear indication of legislative intent to dispense with a culpable mental state.” Rutley, 343 Or at 375 ; see also State v. Cho, 297 Or 195, 201 , 681 P2d 1152 (1984) (“The mere enactment of a crime without an expressly required culpable mental state is insufficient to establish such a clear indication.”). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Oregon Business Planning Council v. Department of Land Conservation & Development
green
2 sentences1992“Ordinarily, when the legislature includes an express provision in one statute, but omits such a provision in another statute, it may be inferred that such an omission was deliberate.” Oregon Business Planning Council v. LCDC, 290 Or 741, 749 , 626 P2d 350 (1981). 1992“Ordinarily, when the legislature includes an express provision in one statute, but omits such a provision in another statute, it may be inferred that such an omission was deliberate.” Oregon Business Planning Council v. LCDC, 290 Or 741, 749 , 626 P2d 350 (1981). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.