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.
8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Green v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1988See Green v. Commonwealth, 94 Mass. (12 Allen) 155 (1866); 31 N.C.L. 1988See Green v. Commonwealth, 94 Mass. (12 Allen) 155 (1866); 31 N.C.L.Rev. 405 (1953). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Watkinsgreen2 sentences1988In State v. Watkins, supra, at 807-08, the court acknowledged the general rule: “Undoubtedly, at common law, a defendant of competent understanding, duly enlightened, had the right to plead guilty to a capital crime instead of denying the charge. 1988In State v. Watkins, supra, 194 S.E.2d at 807-08 , the court acknowledged the general rule: "Undoubtedly, at common law, a defendant of competent understanding, duly enlightened, had the right to plead guilty to a capital crime instead of denying the charge. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
MacOmber v. Cox
green
2 sentences2016In Macomber v. Cox, 249 Or 61, 65 , 435 P2d 462 (1968), the court acknowledged the general principle that “the employer of an independent contractor is not subject to liability for bodily harm caused to another by a tortious act or omission of the contractor or his servants.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) However, the court also cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 409 (1965), for the proposition that there are a variety of exceptions to that rule of immunity. 2016In Macomber v. Cox, 249 Or 61, 65 , 435 P2d 462 (1968), the court acknowledged the general principle that “the employer of an independent contractor is not subject to liability for bodily harm caused to another by a tortious act or omission of the contractor or his servants.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) However, the court also cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 409 (1965), for the proposition that there are a variety of exceptions to that rule of immunity. | 3 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Alvarez
green
2 sentences2018In that case, the court acknowledged the general rule, that, in determining whether offenses merge under ORS 161.067, only the statutory elements of each offense are compared, not the underlying factual circumstances recited in the indictment. 240 Or. 2018App. at 171 , 246 P.3d 26 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Deras v. Myers
green
1 sentence1996In so doing, the court acknowledged the general principle that a prevailing party is not entitled to fees “absent authorization of statute or contract.” 272 Or at 66 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Taylor v. Baker
green
2 sentences1989Citing Steenson v. Robinson, supra, the court acknowledged the general rule that a party may not appeal from a judgment which he or she voluntarily requested. 279 Or at 142 . 1989The Taylor court concluded, however, that an appeal *226 from a voluntary dismissal following a partial summary judgment was permissible under the facts in Taylor. 279 Or at 143 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Nees v. Hocks
green
2 sentences1984The court acknowledged the general rule that “* * * [i]n the absence of a contract or legislation to the contrary, an employer can discharge an employee at any time and for any cause. * * * Such termination by the employer * * * is not a breach of contract and ordinarily does not create a tortious cause of action.” 272 Or at 216 . 1984The court nonetheless recognized an exception to the general rule in instances when the “motive for discharging harms or interferes with an important interest of the community.” Nees v. Hocks, supra, 272 Or at 216 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.