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 1973–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Friends of Yamhill County, Inc. v. Board of Commissionersgreen2 sentences2010There, we rejected the contentions that the landowner must take “substantial actions to actually initiate the construction of dwellings after the issuance of residential building permits,” 237 Or App at 166 , and that expenditures made after June 15, 2007, the referral date of Measure 49, were made in bad faith and were not relevant to consideration of the expenditure ratio factor, 237 Or App at 172, 176 . 2010There, we rejected the contentions that the landowner must take “substantial actions to actually initiate the construction of dwellings after the issuance of residential building permits,” 237 Or App at 166 , and that expenditures made after June 15, 2007, the referral date of Measure 49, were made in bad faith and were not relevant to consideration of the expenditure ratio factor, 237 Or App at 172, 176 . | 2 | 2 |
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Goregreen1 sentence2024In later describing TXO, the Supreme Court assigned a label to the relationship between the actual events and the potential harm, which informs our understanding of what we may consider to be “potential harm.” According to the 56 Trebelhorn v. Prime Wimbledon SPE Court in Gore, TXO endorses a ratio standard that consid- ers the “relationship between the punitive damages award and the harm likely to result from the defendant’s conduct as well as the harm that actually has occurred.” 517 US at 581 (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Philip Morris USA v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2011See Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 340 Or 35, 63 , 127 P3d 1165 (2006), vac’d on other grounds, 549 US 346 , 127 S Ct 1057 , 166 L Ed 2d 940 (2007), on remand, 344 Or 45 , 176 P3d 1255 (2008) (identifying an exception to the general rule of single-digit ratios not listed in Gore for cases of “extraordinarily reprehensible” behavior). 8 Lower federal and state courts have ruled accordingly. 2011See Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 340 Or 35, 63 , 127 P3d 1165 (2006), vac’d on other grounds, 549 US 346 , 127 S Ct 1057 , 166 L Ed 2d 940 (2007), on remand, 344 Or 45 , 176 P3d 1255 (2008) (identifying an exception to the general rule of single-digit ratios not listed in Gore for cases of “extraordinarily reprehensible” behavior). 8 Lower federal and state courts have ruled accordingly. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Philip Morris Inc.green2 sentences2011See Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 340 Or 35, 63 , 127 P3d 1165 (2006), vac’d on other grounds, 549 US 346 , 127 S Ct 1057 , 166 L Ed 2d 940 (2007), on remand, 344 Or 45 , 176 P3d 1255 (2008) (identifying an exception to the general rule of single-digit ratios not listed in Gore for cases of “extraordinarily reprehensible” behavior). 8 Lower federal and state courts have ruled accordingly. 2011See Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 340 Or 35, 63 , 127 P3d 1165 (2006), vac’d on other grounds, 549 US 346 , 127 S Ct 1057 , 166 L Ed 2d 940 (2007), on remand, 344 Or 45 , 176 P3d 1255 (2008) (identifying an exception to the general rule of single-digit ratios not listed in Gore for cases of “extraordinarily reprehensible” behavior). 8 Lower federal and state courts have ruled accordingly. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Philip Morris Inc.green2 sentences2011See Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 340 Or 35, 63 , 127 P3d 1165 (2006), vac’d on other grounds, 549 US 346 , 127 S Ct 1057 , 166 L Ed 2d 940 (2007), on remand, 344 Or 45 , 176 P3d 1255 (2008) (identifying an exception to the general rule of single-digit ratios not listed in Gore for cases of “extraordinarily reprehensible” behavior). 8 Lower federal and state courts have ruled accordingly. 2011See Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 340 Or 35, 63 , 127 P3d 1165 (2006), vac’d on other grounds, 549 US 346 , 127 S Ct 1057 , 166 L Ed 2d 940 (2007), on remand, 344 Or 45 , 176 P3d 1255 (2008) (identifying an exception to the general rule of single-digit ratios not listed in Gore for cases of “extraordinarily reprehensible” behavior). 8 Lower federal and state courts have ruled accordingly. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Clackamas County v. Holmes
green
2 sentences2011We believe the ratio test should be only one of the factors to be considered.’ 508 P2d at 192-3 . 2011It reasoned that “the ratio test should be only one of the factors to be considered.” Id. at 198 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Hamlin v. HAMPTON LUMBER MILLS, INC.
green
1 sentence2024The purpose of such examples is “to caution against the categorical use of ratios,” not “to set forth an exclusive list of exceptions to a ratio requirement.” Id. at 535 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF LAND CONSERVATION & DEVT. v. Crook County
neutral
1 sentence2012My review of the exhibits indicates houses that will be place[d] on the lots will be high end ones and not modular or mobile homes. * * * Even if building costs must be included in the ratio test, the figures found by the board would still indicate substantial expenditure to satisfy this requirement.” For the reasons set out in Crook County IV, 248 Or App at 604-07 , we conclude that the board erred in its determination of the expenditure ratio. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Lithia Motors, Inc. v. Yovan
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 585, 204 P.3d at 127 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hamlin v. Hampton Lumber Mills, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009As we concluded in Hamlin v. Hampton Lumber Mills, Inc., 222 Or App 230, 246 , 193 P3d 46 (2008), the principle behind those factors addresses “the inherent purposes of punitive [awards] to penalize and deter” and thus “permits] a more expansive award than that dictated by the ratio analysis in those circumstances.” In this case, we confront an issue similar to that discussed in Hamlin . 2009As we concluded in Hamlin v. Hampton Lumber Mills, Inc., 222 Or.App. 230, 246 , 193 P.3d 46 (2008), the principle behind those factors addresses "the inherent purposes of punitive [awards] to penalize and deter" and thus "permit[s] a more expansive award than that dictated by the ratio analysis in those circumstances." In this case, we confront an issue similar to that discussed in Hamlin . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
In the Matter of Cd
green
2 sentences2009As we concluded in Hamlin v. Hampton Lumber Mills, Inc., 222 Or App 230, 246 , 193 P3d 46 (2008), the principle behind those factors addresses “the inherent purposes of punitive [awards] to penalize and deter” and thus “permits] a more expansive award than that dictated by the ratio analysis in those circumstances.” In this case, we confront an issue similar to that discussed in Hamlin . 2009As we concluded in Hamlin v. Hampton Lumber Mills, Inc., 222 Or.App. 230, 246 , 193 P.3d 46 (2008), the principle behind those factors addresses "the inherent purposes of punitive [awards] to penalize and deter" and thus "permit[s] a more expansive award than that dictated by the ratio analysis in those circumstances." In this case, we confront an issue similar to that discussed in Hamlin . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Town of Hempstead v. Lynne
green
2 sentences1973Some courts have attempted to define substantial expenditures on the basis of the ratio of expenses incurred to the total cost of the project. 8 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed 1965) 502, § 25.157. ' *198 The ratio test was applied by the court in Town of Hempstead v. Lynne, 32 Misc 2d 312 , 222 NYS2d 526 (1961). 1973Some courts have attempted to define substantial expenditures on the basis of the ratio of expenses incurred to the total cost of the project. 8 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed 1965) 502, § 25.157. ' *198 The ratio test was applied by the court in Town of Hempstead v. Lynne, 32 Misc 2d 312 , 222 NYS2d 526 (1961). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.