opening clause in Oregon

9 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2023 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Robertsongreen or · 1982 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 2 sentences 1984See State v. Robertson, supra, 293 Or at 435-36 . 1984See State v. Robertson, supra, 293 Or at 435-36 .	2	2
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc.green or · 2015 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021See Pearson, 358 Or at 115 (“The trade practices declared unlawful under the UTPA are extensive, too much so for description.”). 186 State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC “(e) Represents that real estate, goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities or qualities that the real estate, goods or services do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, qualification, affiliation, or connection that the person does not have.” The opening clause of ORS 646.608(1) thus describes trans- actions subject to the UTPA,	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
D. E. Shaw Renewable Investments v. Dept. of Rev. green or · 2023 1 sentence 2023Cite as 371 Or 384 (2023) 397 (e)—the opening clause of subsection (4)—“[f]or purposes of this section”—clarifies that the director’s broad author- ity to correct “any * * * error” in subsection (3) is limited by subsection (4).	1	2023–2023
State v. Blanton green or · 1978 1 sentence 2022Accordingly, relying on ORS 161.115(1), the court held that “the opening requirement of ORS 167.207 that one must have acted ‘knowingly’ to be guilty of crimi- nal activity in drugs” extended to the age of the recipient, a material element of the enhanced offense in subsection (4) of the statute. 284 Or at 595 .	1	2022–2022
State v. Maynard green orctapp · 1997 2 sentences 2002State v. Maynard, 149 Or App 293, 297 , 942 P2d 851 (1997), rev den 327 Or 448 (1998). 2002State v. Maynard, 149 Or App 293, 297 , 942 P2d 851 (1997), rev den 327 Or 448 (1998).	1	2002–2002
McIntire v. Forbes green or · 1996 2 sentences 1998Id. at 443 , 909 P.2d 846 . 1998Id. at 443 , 909 P.2d 846 .	1	1998–1998
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith red scotus · 1990 2 sentences 1993The court said: " The law here at issue is not a general regulation, neutral toward religion on its face and its policy, like the unemployment benefits standards that we sustained against attack under the Oregon Constitution (though not under the First Amendment) by claimants who had been discharged for religiously motivated conduct in Smith v. Employment Division, [ 301 Or. 209 , 721 P.2d 445 (1986), vacated and remanded sub nom., Employment Div. v. Smith, 485 U.S. 660 , 108 S.Ct. 1444 , 99 L.Ed.2d 753 , remanded to Employment Appeals Board, Smith v. Employment Division, 307 Or. 68 , 763 P.2d 1993The court said: " The law here at issue is not a general regulation, neutral toward religion on its face and its policy, like the unemployment benefits standards that we sustained against attack under the Oregon Constitution (though not under the First Amendment) by claimants who had been discharged for religiously motivated conduct in Smith v. Employment Division, [ 301 Or. 209 , 721 P.2d 445 (1986), vacated and remanded sub nom., Employment Div. v. Smith, 485 U.S. 660 , 108 S.Ct. 1444 , 99 L.Ed.2d 753 , remanded to Employment Appeals Board, Smith v. Employment Division, 307 Or. 68 , 763 P.2d	1	1993–1993
Black v. Employment Division green or · 1986 2 sentences 1993The court said: " The law here at issue is not a general regulation, neutral toward religion on its face and its policy, like the unemployment benefits standards that we sustained against attack under the Oregon Constitution (though not under the First Amendment) by claimants who had been discharged for religiously motivated conduct in Smith v. Employment Division, [ 301 Or. 209 , 721 P.2d 445 (1986), vacated and remanded sub nom., Employment Div. v. Smith, 485 U.S. 660 , 108 S.Ct. 1444 , 99 L.Ed.2d 753 , remanded to Employment Appeals Board, Smith v. Employment Division, 307 Or. 68 , 763 P.2d 1993The court said: " The law here at issue is not a general regulation, neutral toward religion on its face and its policy, like the unemployment benefits standards that we sustained against attack under the Oregon Constitution (though not under the First Amendment) by claimants who had been discharged for religiously motivated conduct in Smith v. Employment Division, [ 301 Or. 209 , 721 P.2d 445 (1986), vacated and remanded sub nom., Employment Div. v. Smith, 485 U.S. 660 , 108 S.Ct. 1444 , 99 L.Ed.2d 753 , remanded to Employment Appeals Board, Smith v. Employment Division, 307 Or. 68 , 763 P.2d	1	1993–1993
Smith v. Employment Division green or · 1986 2 sentences 1993The court said: " The law here at issue is not a general regulation, neutral toward religion on its face and its policy, like the unemployment benefits standards that we sustained against attack under the Oregon Constitution (though not under the First Amendment) by claimants who had been discharged for religiously motivated conduct in Smith v. Employment Division, [ 301 Or. 209 , 721 P.2d 445 (1986), vacated and remanded sub nom., Employment Div. v. Smith, 485 U.S. 660 , 108 S.Ct. 1444 , 99 L.Ed.2d 753 , remanded to Employment Appeals Board, Smith v. Employment Division, 307 Or. 68 , 763 P.2d 1993The court said: " The law here at issue is not a general regulation, neutral toward religion on its face and its policy, like the unemployment benefits standards that we sustained against attack under the Oregon Constitution (though not under the First Amendment) by claimants who had been discharged for religiously motivated conduct in Smith v. Employment Division, [ 301 Or. 209 , 721 P.2d 445 (1986), vacated and remanded sub nom., Employment Div. v. Smith, 485 U.S. 660 , 108 S.Ct. 1444 , 99 L.Ed.2d 753 , remanded to Employment Appeals Board, Smith v. Employment Division, 307 Or. 68 , 763 P.2d	1	1993–1993
Smith v. Employment Division neutral or · 1990 2 sentences 1993The court said: " The law here at issue is not a general regulation, neutral toward religion on its face and its policy, like the unemployment benefits standards that we sustained against attack under the Oregon Constitution (though not under the First Amendment) by claimants who had been discharged for religiously motivated conduct in Smith v. Employment Division, [ 301 Or. 209 , 721 P.2d 445 (1986), vacated and remanded sub nom., Employment Div. v. Smith, 485 U.S. 660 , 108 S.Ct. 1444 , 99 L.Ed.2d 753 , remanded to Employment Appeals Board, Smith v. Employment Division, 307 Or. 68 , 763 P.2d 1993The court said: " The law here at issue is not a general regulation, neutral toward religion on its face and its policy, like the unemployment benefits standards that we sustained against attack under the Oregon Constitution (though not under the First Amendment) by claimants who had been discharged for religiously motivated conduct in Smith v. Employment Division, [ 301 Or. 209 , 721 P.2d 445 (1986), vacated and remanded sub nom., Employment Div. v. Smith, 485 U.S. 660 , 108 S.Ct. 1444 , 99 L.Ed.2d 753 , remanded to Employment Appeals Board, Smith v. Employment Division, 307 Or. 68 , 763 P.2d	1	1993–1993
Smith v. Employment Division green or · 1988 2 sentences 1993The court said: " The law here at issue is not a general regulation, neutral toward religion on its face and its policy, like the unemployment benefits standards that we sustained against attack under the Oregon Constitution (though not under the First Amendment) by claimants who had been discharged for religiously motivated conduct in Smith v. Employment Division, [ 301 Or. 209 , 721 P.2d 445 (1986), vacated and remanded sub nom., Employment Div. v. Smith, 485 U.S. 660 , 108 S.Ct. 1444 , 99 L.Ed.2d 753 , remanded to Employment Appeals Board, Smith v. Employment Division, 307 Or. 68 , 763 P.2d 1993The court said: " The law here at issue is not a general regulation, neutral toward religion on its face and its policy, like the unemployment benefits standards that we sustained against attack under the Oregon Constitution (though not under the First Amendment) by claimants who had been discharged for religiously motivated conduct in Smith v. Employment Division, [ 301 Or. 209 , 721 P.2d 445 (1986), vacated and remanded sub nom., Employment Div. v. Smith, 485 U.S. 660 , 108 S.Ct. 1444 , 99 L.Ed.2d 753 , remanded to Employment Appeals Board, Smith v. Employment Division, 307 Or. 68 , 763 P.2d	1	1993–1993
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith green scotus · 1988 2 sentences 1993The court said: " The law here at issue is not a general regulation, neutral toward religion on its face and its policy, like the unemployment benefits standards that we sustained against attack under the Oregon Constitution (though not under the First Amendment) by claimants who had been discharged for religiously motivated conduct in Smith v. Employment Division, [ 301 Or. 209 , 721 P.2d 445 (1986), vacated and remanded sub nom., Employment Div. v. Smith, 485 U.S. 660 , 108 S.Ct. 1444 , 99 L.Ed.2d 753 , remanded to Employment Appeals Board, Smith v. Employment Division, 307 Or. 68 , 763 P.2d 1993The court said: " The law here at issue is not a general regulation, neutral toward religion on its face and its policy, like the unemployment benefits standards that we sustained against attack under the Oregon Constitution (though not under the First Amendment) by claimants who had been discharged for religiously motivated conduct in Smith v. Employment Division, [ 301 Or. 209 , 721 P.2d 445 (1986), vacated and remanded sub nom., Employment Div. v. Smith, 485 U.S. 660 , 108 S.Ct. 1444 , 99 L.Ed.2d 753 , remanded to Employment Appeals Board, Smith v. Employment Division, 307 Or. 68 , 763 P.2d	1	1993–1993
Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'Leary green or · 1987 2 sentences 1989Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'Leary, 303 Or. 297 , 736 P.2d 173 (1987). 1989Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'Leary, 303 Or. 297 , 736 P.2d 173 (1987).	1	1989–1989

Where else courts name it

CA 28 (1879–2026) WA 13 (1920–2020) NY 12 (1914–2004) OR 9 (1984–2023) MA 9 (1929–2018) TX 8 (1947–2026) PA 7 (1924–2019) DE 5 (1999–2019) MD 5 (1963–2020) MI 5 (1978–2025) HI 5 (1940–2021) AR 4 (1942–2017) FL 4 (1965–2017) IN 4 (1983–2025) MT 4 (1901–2020) WY 3 (1975–2010) IL 2 (2016–2023) CO 2 (1998–1998) MN 2 (1888–2015) NC 2 (1924–1972) AL 2 (1917–2014) RI 2 (1966–1967) MO 2 (2013–2018) NJ 2 (1953–1954) CT 2 (1928–1997) VA 2 (2001–2026)

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