commencement hearing (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

commencement hearing in Oregon

8 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2025 4 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Icenhower v. SAIF Corp.green
orctapp · 2002 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
2 sentences

2025But, as Icenhower demonstrates, that “subsequent narrowing of the issues to just the penalty issue,” did not divest the director of jurisdiction once it was established; the determination of who—between the director and the board—had author- ity to decide the penalty issue requires consideration of the “claims and issues as framed at the outset of the process.” See Icenhower, 180 Or App at 305 (subsequent narrowing of issues did not divest the board of jurisdiction); cf. id. at 308 (Wollheim, J., concurring) (“The majority holds that juris- diction permanently vests at the time a request for h

2025But, as Icenhower demonstrates, that “subsequent narrowing of the issues to just the penalty issue,” did not divest the director of jurisdiction once it was established; the determination of who—between the director and the board—had author- ity to decide the penalty issue requires consideration of the “claims and issues as framed at the outset of the process.” See Icenhower, 180 Or App at 305 (subsequent narrowing of issues did not divest the board of jurisdiction); cf. id. at 308 (Wollheim, J., concurring) (“The majority holds that juris- diction permanently vests at the time a request for h

22
State v. Welchgreen
or · 2018 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022B., 309 Or App 455, 458 , 482 P3d 134 (2021) (not exercising discretion to correct an assumed error to timely provide a citation for an ORS chapter 426 com- mitment because there was “no basis on which to conclude that the service of the citation at the commencement of the hearing caused appellant not to receive the benefits of a full and fair hearing”); State v. Kerne, 289 Or App 345, 349-50 , 410 P3d 369 (2017), rev den, 363 Or 119 (2018) (“One cir- cumstance in which we will not and cannot exercise our dis- cretion to correct a plain error is when that error is harm- less[.]”).

11
Sullivan v. Sullivangreen
nyappdiv · 1982 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994Sullivan v. Sullivan, 87 A.D.2d 42, 44 , 451 N.Y.S.2d 851, 853 (App.Div. 1982).

1994Sullivan v. Sullivan, 87 A.D.2d 42, 44 , 451 N.Y.S.2d 851, 853 (App.Div. 1982).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
State v. K. R. B. neutral
orctapp · 2021
2 sentences

2023Furthermore, there was noth- ing in the record to suggest that “service of the citation at the commencement of the hearing caused appellant not to receive the benefits of a full and fair hearing.” Id.

2022B., 309 Or App 455, 458 , 482 P3d 134 (2021) (not exercising discretion to correct an assumed error to timely provide a citation for an ORS chapter 426 com- mitment because there was “no basis on which to conclude that the service of the citation at the commencement of the hearing caused appellant not to receive the benefits of a full and fair hearing”); State v. Kerne, 289 Or App 345, 349-50 , 410 P3d 369 (2017), rev den, 363 Or 119 (2018) (“One cir- cumstance in which we will not and cannot exercise our dis- cretion to correct a plain error is when that error is harm- less[.]”).

22022–2023
Campbell v. Board of Medical Examiners green
orctapp · 1974
2 sentences

1975Campbell v. Bd. of Medical Exam., 16 Or App 381 , 518 P2d 1042 (1973), Sup Ct review denied (1974).

1974ORS 183.480 (7) (a) provides that this court shall reverse or remand the order of the administrative agency only if it finds: “(a) The order to be unlawful in substance or procedure, but error in procedure shall not be cause for reversal or remand unless the court shall find that substantial rights of the petitioner were prejudiced thereby and defects in the content of the notice required by ORS 183.415 not asserted at or prior to the commencement of the hearing before the agency shall not be cause for reversal or remand * * *.” (Emphasis supplied.) We can find nothing to indicate that petitio

21974–1975
State v. Kerne green
orctapp · 2017
2 sentences

2022B., 309 Or App 455, 458 , 482 P3d 134 (2021) (not exercising discretion to correct an assumed error to timely provide a citation for an ORS chapter 426 com- mitment because there was “no basis on which to conclude that the service of the citation at the commencement of the hearing caused appellant not to receive the benefits of a full and fair hearing”); State v. Kerne, 289 Or App 345, 349-50 , 410 P3d 369 (2017), rev den, 363 Or 119 (2018) (“One cir- cumstance in which we will not and cannot exercise our dis- cretion to correct a plain error is when that error is harm- less[.]”).

2022B., 309 Or App 455, 458 , 482 P3d 134 (2021) (not exercising discretion to correct an assumed error to timely provide a citation for an ORS chapter 426 com- mitment because there was “no basis on which to conclude that the service of the citation at the commencement of the hearing caused appellant not to receive the benefits of a full and fair hearing”); State v. Kerne, 289 Or App 345, 349-50 , 410 P3d 369 (2017), rev den, 363 Or 119 (2018) (“One cir- cumstance in which we will not and cannot exercise our dis- cretion to correct a plain error is when that error is harm- less[.]”).

12022–2022
Wilson v. State Accident Insurance Fund green
orctapp · 1980
2 sentences

1982She relies on Wilson v. SAIF, 48 Or App 993 , 618 P2d 473 (1980), where we stated: “The situation with which we are confronted is one in which there are competing policy considerations.

1982She relies on Wilson v. SAIF, 48 Or App 993 , 618 P2d 473 (1980), where we stated: “The situation with which we are confronted is one in which there are competing policy considerations.

11982–1982

Where else courts name it

NY 94 (1958–2024) CT 43 (1898–2024) CA 43 (1937–2025) IL 38 (1949–2022) OH 26 (1989–2024) TX 17 (1968–2024) PA 12 (1986–2026) GA 10 (1979–2019) AL 9 (1960–2025) WA 8 (2012–2016) OR 8 (1974–2025) CO 7 (1976–2025) KS 6 (1966–2023) MO 6 (1981–2021) MN 6 (1984–2007) MD 6 (1911–2010) TN 5 (1956–2021) AZ 4 (1972–2018) OK 4 (1983–2020) RI 4 (2001–2018) KY 4 (1982–2026) IA 4 (1948–2024) FL 4 (1982–1992) HI 4 (1985–2014) IN 3 (1982–2007) MI 3 (1920–2025) LA 3 (1971–1987) NJ 3 (1955–1979) SD 3 (1926–1999) AR 2 (2010–2022) NC 2 (2013–2017) WY 2 (1976–1986) WI 2 (1963–1999) NE 2 (1909–2016) NV 2 (1971–2021)

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