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 1958–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hale v. Port of Portlandgreen2 sentences2026Id. at 600 ; see Hale v. Port of Portland, 308 Or 508, 518 , 783 P2d 506 (1989) (explain- ing that liability limitation for an entity that shares in the state’s sovereign immunity does not deny a right guaranteed under Article I, section 10, “because there never was such a right”).12 Plaintiff does not identify any flaw in the reason- ing of those decisions, and his arguments do not address the immunity that the Tort Claims Act has retained for the state, except to the extent it affects the constitutionality of the immunity granted to the individual employees. 2026Id. at 600 ; see Hale v. Port of Portland, 308 Or 508, 518 , 783 P2d 506 (1989) (explain- ing that liability limitation for an entity that shares in the state’s sovereign immunity does not deny a right guaranteed under Article I, section 10, “because there never was such a right”).12 Plaintiff does not identify any flaw in the reason- ing of those decisions, and his arguments do not address the immunity that the Tort Claims Act has retained for the state, except to the extent it affects the constitutionality of the immunity granted to the individual employees. | 1 | 1 |
Gilliam County v. Department of Environmental Qualitygreen2 sentences2019See Gilliam County v. Dept. of Environmental Quality, 316 Or 99, 106-08 , 849 P2d 500 (1993), rev’d on other grounds sub nom Oregon Waste Systems v. Dept. of Environmental Quality, 511 US 93 , 114 S Ct 1345 , 128 L Ed 2d 13 (1994) (analyzing constitutionality of enabling statute as part of analysis of constitutionality of administrative rule under ORS 183.400). 2019See Gilliam County v. Dept. of Environmental Quality, 316 Or 99, 106-08 , 849 P2d 500 (1993), rev’d on other grounds sub nom Oregon Waste Systems v. Dept. of Environmental Quality, 511 US 93 , 114 S Ct 1345 , 128 L Ed 2d 13 (1994) (analyzing constitutionality of enabling statute as part of analysis of constitutionality of administrative rule under ORS 183.400). | 1 | 1 |
Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Ore.green2 sentences2019See Gilliam County v. Dept. of Environmental Quality, 316 Or 99, 106-08 , 849 P2d 500 (1993), rev’d on other grounds sub nom Oregon Waste Systems v. Dept. of Environmental Quality, 511 US 93 , 114 S Ct 1345 , 128 L Ed 2d 13 (1994) (analyzing constitutionality of enabling statute as part of analysis of constitutionality of administrative rule under ORS 183.400). 2019See Gilliam County v. Dept. of Environmental Quality, 316 Or 99, 106-08 , 849 P2d 500 (1993), rev’d on other grounds sub nom Oregon Waste Systems v. Dept. of Environmental Quality, 511 US 93 , 114 S Ct 1345 , 128 L Ed 2d 13 (1994) (analyzing constitutionality of enabling statute as part of analysis of constitutionality of administrative rule under ORS 183.400). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Clarke v. Oregon Health Sciences University
green
1 sentence2026Id. at 600 ; see Hale v. Port of Portland, 308 Or 508, 518 , 783 P2d 506 (1989) (explain- ing that liability limitation for an entity that shares in the state’s sovereign immunity does not deny a right guaranteed under Article I, section 10, “because there never was such a right”).12 Plaintiff does not identify any flaw in the reason- ing of those decisions, and his arguments do not address the immunity that the Tort Claims Act has retained for the state, except to the extent it affects the constitutionality of the immunity granted to the individual employees. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Marshall v. Martinson
green
2 sentences2022Marshall v. Martinson, 268 Or 46, 51 , 518 P2d 1312 (1974).3 Approximately six years after the decision in Marshall, the Oregon legislature revised the rule’s language to explicitly grant that discretion to a trial court, a decision that was overturned by the passage of Ballot Measure 10. 2022Marshall v. Martinson, 268 Or 46, 51 , 518 P2d 1312 (1974).3 Approximately six years after the decision in Marshall, the Oregon legislature revised the rule’s language to explicitly grant that discretion to a trial court, a decision that was overturned by the passage of Ballot Measure 10. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Miller
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 335 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Anderson
neutral
2 sentences1999ORS 10.215 requires the clerk of the court to prepare a master jury fist from several sources, including “the most recent list of electors of the county.” In State v. Anderson, 6 Or App 22 , 485 P2d 446 (1971), cert den sub nom Atkison v. Oregon, 406 US 973 (1972), appeal dismissed sub nom Anderson v. Oregon, 410 US 920 , 93 S Ct 1362 , 35 L Ed 2d 582 (1973), the defendant contended that a jury pool chosen at random by a computer from a list of registered voters was not representative of a valid cross-section of the community. 1999ORS 10.215 requires the clerk of the court to prepare a master jury fist from several sources, including “the most recent list of electors of the county.” In State v. Anderson, 6 Or App 22 , 485 P2d 446 (1971), cert den sub nom Atkison v. Oregon, 406 US 973 (1972), appeal dismissed sub nom Anderson v. Oregon, 410 US 920 , 93 S Ct 1362 , 35 L Ed 2d 582 (1973), the defendant contended that a jury pool chosen at random by a computer from a list of registered voters was not representative of a valid cross-section of the community. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Martinka v. Oregon
green
1 sentence1999ORS 10.215 requires the clerk of the court to prepare a master jury fist from several sources, including “the most recent list of electors of the county.” In State v. Anderson, 6 Or App 22 , 485 P2d 446 (1971), cert den sub nom Atkison v. Oregon, 406 US 973 (1972), appeal dismissed sub nom Anderson v. Oregon, 410 US 920 , 93 S Ct 1362 , 35 L Ed 2d 582 (1973), the defendant contended that a jury pool chosen at random by a computer from a list of registered voters was not representative of a valid cross-section of the community. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Tolpo v. Bullock
green
1 sentence1999ORS 10.215 requires the clerk of the court to prepare a master jury fist from several sources, including “the most recent list of electors of the county.” In State v. Anderson, 6 Or App 22 , 485 P2d 446 (1971), cert den sub nom Atkison v. Oregon, 406 US 973 (1972), appeal dismissed sub nom Anderson v. Oregon, 410 US 920 , 93 S Ct 1362 , 35 L Ed 2d 582 (1973), the defendant contended that a jury pool chosen at random by a computer from a list of registered voters was not representative of a valid cross-section of the community. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Permisohn v. United States
green
1 sentence1999ORS 10.215 requires the clerk of the court to prepare a master jury fist from several sources, including “the most recent list of electors of the county.” In State v. Anderson, 6 Or App 22 , 485 P2d 446 (1971), cert den sub nom Atkison v. Oregon, 406 US 973 (1972), appeal dismissed sub nom Anderson v. Oregon, 410 US 920 , 93 S Ct 1362 , 35 L Ed 2d 582 (1973), the defendant contended that a jury pool chosen at random by a computer from a list of registered voters was not representative of a valid cross-section of the community. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Gladden v. Louisiana
green
1 sentence1999ORS 10.215 requires the clerk of the court to prepare a master jury fist from several sources, including “the most recent list of electors of the county.” In State v. Anderson, 6 Or App 22 , 485 P2d 446 (1971), cert den sub nom Atkison v. Oregon, 406 US 973 (1972), appeal dismissed sub nom Anderson v. Oregon, 410 US 920 , 93 S Ct 1362 , 35 L Ed 2d 582 (1973), the defendant contended that a jury pool chosen at random by a computer from a list of registered voters was not representative of a valid cross-section of the community. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Wiglesworth v. Wyrick
green
2 sentences1992In Wiglesworth v. Wyrick, 531 SW2d 713 (Mo 1976), the Missouri Supreme Court considered an attack on the constitutionality of a rule relating to post-conviction motions to vacate a sentence. 1992That court held that “the suspension [of the writ of habeas corpus] prohibited [in Article I, section 12 of the state constitution] relates to denial of the substantive right to have judicial inquiry into the cause of and justification for allegedly illegal detention, not to the form and procedure utilized in such proceeding.” Id. at 717 . 10 The Missouri court held that, where the substantive remedy is as broad as that provided under state or federal habeas corpus guarantees, “[t]he particular procedural requirements specified by a state for pursuing the substantive objective are for it to de | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State ex rel. Washington County Juvenile Department v. K.M.S.
green
2 sentences1976Dept. v. K.M.S., 26 Or App 219 , 552 P2d 578 (1976). 1976Dept. v. K.M.S., 26 Or App 219 , 552 P2d 578 (1976). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Kosmecki v. Portland Stevedoring Co.
neutral
2 sentences1958The others are: Johnson v. Timber Structures, Inc., 203 Or 670 , 281 P2d 723 ; Kosmecki v. Portland Stevedoring Co., 190 Or 85 , 223 P2d 1035 ; Atkinson v. Fairview Dairy Farms, supra; Brown v. Underwood Lumber Co., 172 Or 261 , 141 P2d 527 ; Inwall v. Transpacific Lumber Co., 165 Or 560 , 108 P2d 522 . *437 In the Atkinson case, as stated, the constitutionality of the immunity clause, as there applied, was challenged. 1958The others are: Johnson v. Timber Structures, Inc., 203 Or 670 , 281 P2d 723 ; Kosmecki v. Portland Stevedoring Co., 190 Or 85 , 223 P2d 1035 ; Atkinson v. Fairview Dairy Farms, supra; Brown v. Underwood Lumber Co., 172 Or 261 , 141 P2d 527 ; Inwall v. Transpacific Lumber Co., 165 Or 560 , 108 P2d 522 . *437 In the Atkinson case, as stated, the constitutionality of the immunity clause, as there applied, was challenged. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Johnson v. Timber Structures, Inc.
green
2 sentences1958The others are: Johnson v. Timber Structures, Inc., 203 Or 670 , 281 P2d 723 ; Kosmecki v. Portland Stevedoring Co., 190 Or 85 , 223 P2d 1035 ; Atkinson v. Fairview Dairy Farms, supra; Brown v. Underwood Lumber Co., 172 Or 261 , 141 P2d 527 ; Inwall v. Transpacific Lumber Co., 165 Or 560 , 108 P2d 522 . *437 In the Atkinson case, as stated, the constitutionality of the immunity clause, as there applied, was challenged. 1958The others are: Johnson v. Timber Structures, Inc., 203 Or 670 , 281 P2d 723 ; Kosmecki v. Portland Stevedoring Co., 190 Or 85 , 223 P2d 1035 ; Atkinson v. Fairview Dairy Farms, supra; Brown v. Underwood Lumber Co., 172 Or 261 , 141 P2d 527 ; Inwall v. Transpacific Lumber Co., 165 Or 560 , 108 P2d 522 . *437 In the Atkinson case, as stated, the constitutionality of the immunity clause, as there applied, was challenged. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Inwall v. Transpacific Lumber Co.
neutral
2 sentences1958The others are: Johnson v. Timber Structures, Inc., 203 Or 670 , 281 P2d 723 ; Kosmecki v. Portland Stevedoring Co., 190 Or 85 , 223 P2d 1035 ; Atkinson v. Fairview Dairy Farms, supra; Brown v. Underwood Lumber Co., 172 Or 261 , 141 P2d 527 ; Inwall v. Transpacific Lumber Co., 165 Or 560 , 108 P2d 522 . *437 In the Atkinson case, as stated, the constitutionality of the immunity clause, as there applied, was challenged. 1958The others are: Johnson v. Timber Structures, Inc., 203 Or 670 , 281 P2d 723 ; Kosmecki v. Portland Stevedoring Co., 190 Or 85 , 223 P2d 1035 ; Atkinson v. Fairview Dairy Farms, supra; Brown v. Underwood Lumber Co., 172 Or 261 , 141 P2d 527 ; Inwall v. Transpacific Lumber Co., 165 Or 560 , 108 P2d 522 . *437 In the Atkinson case, as stated, the constitutionality of the immunity clause, as there applied, was challenged. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Brown v. Underwood Lumber Co.
neutral
2 sentences1958The others are: Johnson v. Timber Structures, Inc., 203 Or 670 , 281 P2d 723 ; Kosmecki v. Portland Stevedoring Co., 190 Or 85 , 223 P2d 1035 ; Atkinson v. Fairview Dairy Farms, supra; Brown v. Underwood Lumber Co., 172 Or 261 , 141 P2d 527 ; Inwall v. Transpacific Lumber Co., 165 Or 560 , 108 P2d 522 . *437 In the Atkinson case, as stated, the constitutionality of the immunity clause, as there applied, was challenged. 1958The others are: Johnson v. Timber Structures, Inc., 203 Or 670 , 281 P2d 723 ; Kosmecki v. Portland Stevedoring Co., 190 Or 85 , 223 P2d 1035 ; Atkinson v. Fairview Dairy Farms, supra; Brown v. Underwood Lumber Co., 172 Or 261 , 141 P2d 527 ; Inwall v. Transpacific Lumber Co., 165 Or 560 , 108 P2d 522 . *437 In the Atkinson case, as stated, the constitutionality of the immunity clause, as there applied, was challenged. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.