compliance has previously been used doctrine (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

compliance has previously been used doctrine in Oregon

8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2023 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon.

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 (5)

CaseCitedYears
Brown v. Portland School District No. 1 green
or · 1981
2 sentences

2019As this court has previously observed, "The doctrine of substantial compliance has previously been used * * * to avoid the harsh results of insisting on literal compliance with statutory notice provisions where the purpose of these requirements has been met." Brown v. Portland School Dist. #1 , 291 Or. 77 , 81, 628 P.2d 1183 (1981) (internal citation omitted).

2019As this court has previously observed, "The doctrine of substantial compliance has previously been used * * * to avoid the harsh results of insisting on literal compliance with statutory notice provisions where the purpose of these requirements has been met." Brown v. Portland School Dist. #1 , 291 Or. 77 , 81, 628 P.2d 1183 (1981) (internal citation omitted).

51982–2023
Rogers v. Roberts green
or · 1986
2 sentences

1995Rogers v. Roberts, 300 Or 687, 691-92 , 717 P2d 620 (1986).

1995Rogers v. Roberts, 300 Or 687, 691-92 , 717 P2d 620 (1986).

21992–1995
Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Energy Facility Siting Council green
or · 2019
2 sentences

2023Siting Coun., 365 Or 371, 389 , 446 P3d 53 (2019) (quoting Brown v. Portland School Dist. #1, 291 Or 77, 81 , 628 P2d 1183 (1981) (omission in Friends of the Columbia Gorge)).

2023Siting Coun., 365 Or 371, 389 , 446 P3d 53 (2019) (quoting Brown v. Portland School Dist. #1, 291 Or 77, 81 , 628 P2d 1183 (1981) (omission in Friends of the Columbia Gorge)).

12023–2023
McComas v. Employment Department neutral
orctapp · 1995
1 sentence

2001In holding that the state’s notice substantially complied, the court held: “ ‘The sufficiency of the notice given must be determined with the object of the statute in mind and technically deficient claims should not be barred where the purpose of the statute is served. * * * The doctrine of substantial compliance has previously been used by this court to avoid the harsh results of insisting on literal compliance with statutory notice requirements where the purpose of the requirements has been met.’ ” McComas, 133 Or App at 580 (quoting Brown v. Portland School Dist. #1, 291 Or 77, 81 , 628 P2d

12001–2001
Urban Renewal Agency v. Lackey green
or · 1976
2 sentences

1981In Urban Renewal, supra, we held that the purpose of the Tort Claims Act notice sections is to give the public body timely notice of the tort claim and to allow its officers an opportunity to investigate matters promptly and ascertain all necessary facts. 275 Or. at 41 , 549 P.2d 657 .

1981In Urban Renewal, supra, we held that the purpose of the Tort Claims Act notice sections is to give the public body timely notice of the tort claim and to allow its officers an opportunity to investigate matters promptly and ascertain all necessary facts. 275 Or. at 41 , 549 P.2d 657 .

11981–1981

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.482 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check