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 1 courts 1996–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Griffithgreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., In re Griffith, 304 Or 575, 637 , 748 P2d 86 (1987) (applying factor when some of lawyer’s indebtedness had likely been reduced by 16 Respondent asserts in his opening brief that the trial panel hearing was originally set at an earlier time but was delayed when he attempted (unsuccess- fully) to settle the case so that he could take a job out of state. 2024See, e.g., In re Griffith, 304 Or 575, 637 , 748 P2d 86 (1987) (applying factor when some of lawyer’s indebtedness had likely been reduced by 16 Respondent asserts in his opening brief that the trial panel hearing was originally set at an earlier time but was delayed when he attempted (unsuccess- fully) to settle the case so that he could take a job out of state. | 1 | 1 |
Supove v. Densmoor Et Uxgreen2 sentences2008Accordingly, under BR 8.12, applicant bore the following burden of proof: “An applicant for reinstatement to the practice of law in Oregon shall have the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant has the requisite good moral character and general fitness to practice law and that the applicant’s resumption of the practice of law in this state will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or the public interest.” “Clear and convincing evidence means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” In re Johnson, 300 Or 52, 55 , 707 P2d 573 (19 2008Accordingly, under BR 8.12, applicant bore the following burden of proof: “An applicant for reinstatement to the practice of law in Oregon shall have the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant has the requisite good moral character and general fitness to practice law and that the applicant’s resumption of the practice of law in this state will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or the public interest.” “Clear and convincing evidence means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” In re Johnson, 300 Or 52, 55 , 707 P2d 573 (19 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Gregory Mark Abel
green
2 sentences2025Cite as 374 Or 350 (2025) 353 On or shortly after the date of his meeting with Mark, respondent dictated a demand letter to Jon, dated Tuesday, July 20, 2021. 2025Cite as 374 Or 350 (2025) 353 On or shortly after the date of his meeting with Mark, respondent dictated a demand letter to Jon, dated Tuesday, July 20, 2021. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Cobb
green
2 sentences2015As explained earlier, however, former DR 10-101(B)(1) does not require a lawyer seeking client consent to disclose “all facts known to [the lawyer] that could be helpful to the former client.” Cobb, 345 Or at 135 . 2015As explained earlier, however, former DR 10-101(B)(1) does not require a lawyer seeking client consent to disclose “all facts known to [the lawyer] that could be helpful to the for- mer client.” Cobb, 345 Or at 135 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
In re Munn
green
1 sentence2024Cite as 372 Or 589 (2024) 609 conceded that he had not reviewed the supplemental tran- script from Montague. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Chase
green
2 sentences2024That evidence was not presented to the trial panel, however, and so it is not properly before us. 17 In one case, we assumed that a three-year delay between the filing of the initial Bar grievance and the trial panel decision could be a mitigating factor but concluded that the mitigating factors in that case were “substantially outweighed by the aggravating factors.” In re Ramirez, 362 Or 370 , 385, 408 P3d 1065 (2018). 18 The Bar’s Motion for Leave to File Memorandum of Additional Authorities on this issue, opposed by respondent, is denied. 616 In re Munn civil judgments against him); In re C 2024That evidence was not presented to the trial panel, however, and so it is not properly before us. 17 In one case, we assumed that a three-year delay between the filing of the initial Bar grievance and the trial panel decision could be a mitigating factor but concluded that the mitigating factors in that case were “substantially outweighed by the aggravating factors.” In re Ramirez, 362 Or 370 , 385, 408 P3d 1065 (2018). 18 The Bar’s Motion for Leave to File Memorandum of Additional Authorities on this issue, opposed by respondent, is denied. 616 In re Munn civil judgments against him); In re C | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct Johnson
green
2 sentences2008Accordingly, under BR 8.12, applicant bore the following burden of proof: “An applicant for reinstatement to the practice of law in Oregon shall have the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant has the requisite good moral character and general fitness to practice law and that the applicant’s resumption of the practice of law in this state will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or the public interest.” “Clear and convincing evidence means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” In re Johnson, 300 Or 52, 55 , 707 P2d 573 (19 2008Accordingly, under BR 8.12, applicant bore the following burden of proof: “An applicant for reinstatement to the practice of law in Oregon shall have the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant has the requisite good moral character and general fitness to practice law and that the applicant’s resumption of the practice of law in this state will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or the public interest.” “Clear and convincing evidence means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” In re Johnson, 300 Or 52, 55 , 707 P2d 573 (19 | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Schaffner
green
1 sentence2007In re Schaffner, 323 Or *401 472, 481, 918 P2d 803 (1996) (so stating; court also noted disciplinary rules do not require an accused to attend trial panel hearing). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Wyllie
green
1 sentence2003Id. at 180-81 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Arbuckle
green
2 sentences1996The mitigating factors do not outweigh the aggravating factors, even though lack of a prior disciplinary record is a strong mitigating factor. *481 Bar counsel relies on In re Arbuckle, 308 Or 135 , 775 P2d 832 (1989), to support the Bar’s position that failure to appear at the trial panel hearing is an aggravating factor. 1996The mitigating factors do not outweigh the aggravating factors, even though lack of a prior disciplinary record is a strong mitigating factor. *481 Bar counsel relies on In re Arbuckle, 308 Or 135 , 775 P2d 832 (1989), to support the Bar’s position that failure to appear at the trial panel hearing is an aggravating factor. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.