defendant cannot claim in Oregon

8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1897–2023 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
Altree v. Mooregreen or · 1861 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 2 sentences 2023Similarly, in Altree v. Moore, 1 Or 350, 352 (1861), the court noted that, in an FED action, a defendant cannot claim title as a defense and that if “he, defendant, have a title paramount, he must assert it in a different manner.” In Aiken v. Aiken, 12 Or 203, 207-08 , 6 P 682 (1885), the court reversed an FED judgment and “remanded to the circuit court with directions to dismiss it for the want of jurisdiction of the justice’s court, and of [the circuit] court, upon appeal,” where the plaintiff widow claimed title to land through her husband, who had title before his death, and title was “nec 2023Similarly, in Altree v. Moore, 1 Or 350, 352 (1861), the court noted that, in an FED action, a defendant cannot claim title as a defense and that if “he, defendant, have a title paramount, he must assert it in a different manner.” In Aiken v. Aiken, 12 Or 203, 207-08 , 6 P 682 (1885), the court reversed an FED judgment and “remanded to the circuit court with directions to dismiss it for the want of jurisdiction of the justice’s court, and of [the circuit] court, upon appeal,” where the plaintiff widow claimed title to land through her husband, who had title before his death, and title was “nec	2	2
State v. Hornergreen orctapp · 2020 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 2 sentences 2020Cite as 306 Or App 402 (2020) 409 That, as defendant seems to acknowledge, at least sounds like a definitive holding that a defendant cannot challenge an aggregate sentence on proportionality grounds, whether by comparing it to a sentence applicable to a single offense, or by some other means. 2020The majority opinion, of course, concludes that Parker and Real, either individually or collectively, hold that a defendant cannot challenge an aggregate sentence as disproportionate under Article I, section 16. 306 Or App at 403-04.	1	1
State v. Lovegreen orctapp · 1979 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., State v. Cho, 65 Or App 442 , 671 P2d 1181 (1983) , rev’d on other grounds 297 Or 195 , 681 P2d 1152 (1984) ; State v. Goakey, 47 Or App 31 , 613 P2d 1074 rev den 289 Or 677 (1980); State v. Picard, 37 Or App 483 , 587 P2d 514 (1978); see also State v. Love, 38 Or App 459 , 590 P2d 741 , rev den 286 Or 303 (1979). 3 Although the failure of an accusatory instrument to state facts sufficient to charge a crime may be raised at any time, State v. Hunt, 3 Or App 634 , 475 P2d 596 , rev den (1970), a defendant cannot bar reprosecution by waiting until the close of the state’s case and rai 1986See, e.g., State v. Cho, 65 Or App 442 , 671 P2d 1181 (1983) , rev’d on other grounds 297 Or 195 , 681 P2d 1152 (1984) ; State v. Goakey, 47 Or App 31 , 613 P2d 1074 rev den 289 Or 677 (1980); State v. Picard, 37 Or App 483 , 587 P2d 514 (1978); see also State v. Love, 38 Or App 459 , 590 P2d 741 , rev den 286 Or 303 (1979). 3 Although the failure of an accusatory instrument to state facts sufficient to charge a crime may be raised at any time, State v. Hunt, 3 Or App 634 , 475 P2d 596 , rev den (1970), a defendant cannot bar reprosecution by waiting until the close of the state’s case and rai	1	1
State v. Huntgreen orctapp · 1970 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., State v. Cho, 65 Or App 442 , 671 P2d 1181 (1983) , rev’d on other grounds 297 Or 195 , 681 P2d 1152 (1984) ; State v. Goakey, 47 Or App 31 , 613 P2d 1074 rev den 289 Or 677 (1980); State v. Picard, 37 Or App 483 , 587 P2d 514 (1978); see also State v. Love, 38 Or App 459 , 590 P2d 741 , rev den 286 Or 303 (1979). 3 Although the failure of an accusatory instrument to state facts sufficient to charge a crime may be raised at any time, State v. Hunt, 3 Or App 634 , 475 P2d 596 , rev den (1970), a defendant cannot bar reprosecution by waiting until the close of the state’s case and rai 1986See, e.g., State v. Cho, 65 Or App 442 , 671 P2d 1181 (1983) , rev’d on other grounds 297 Or 195 , 681 P2d 1152 (1984) ; State v. Goakey, 47 Or App 31 , 613 P2d 1074 rev den 289 Or 677 (1980); State v. Picard, 37 Or App 483 , 587 P2d 514 (1978); see also State v. Love, 38 Or App 459 , 590 P2d 741 , rev den 286 Or 303 (1979). 3 Although the failure of an accusatory instrument to state facts sufficient to charge a crime may be raised at any time, State v. Hunt, 3 Or App 634 , 475 P2d 596 , rev den (1970), a defendant cannot bar reprosecution by waiting until the close of the state’s case and rai	1	1
State v. Chang Hwan Chogreen or · 1984 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., State v. Cho, 65 Or App 442 , 671 P2d 1181 (1983) , rev’d on other grounds 297 Or 195 , 681 P2d 1152 (1984) ; State v. Goakey, 47 Or App 31 , 613 P2d 1074 rev den 289 Or 677 (1980); State v. Picard, 37 Or App 483 , 587 P2d 514 (1978); see also State v. Love, 38 Or App 459 , 590 P2d 741 , rev den 286 Or 303 (1979). 3 Although the failure of an accusatory instrument to state facts sufficient to charge a crime may be raised at any time, State v. Hunt, 3 Or App 634 , 475 P2d 596 , rev den (1970), a defendant cannot bar reprosecution by waiting until the close of the state’s case and rai 1986See, e.g., State v. Cho, 65 Or App 442 , 671 P2d 1181 (1983) , rev’d on other grounds 297 Or 195 , 681 P2d 1152 (1984) ; State v. Goakey, 47 Or App 31 , 613 P2d 1074 rev den 289 Or 677 (1980); State v. Picard, 37 Or App 483 , 587 P2d 514 (1978); see also State v. Love, 38 Or App 459 , 590 P2d 741 , rev den 286 Or 303 (1979). 3 Although the failure of an accusatory instrument to state facts sufficient to charge a crime may be raised at any time, State v. Hunt, 3 Or App 634 , 475 P2d 596 , rev den (1970), a defendant cannot bar reprosecution by waiting until the close of the state’s case and rai	1	1
State v. Chang Hwan Chogreen orctapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., State v. Cho, 65 Or App 442 , 671 P2d 1181 (1983) , rev’d on other grounds 297 Or 195 , 681 P2d 1152 (1984) ; State v. Goakey, 47 Or App 31 , 613 P2d 1074 rev den 289 Or 677 (1980); State v. Picard, 37 Or App 483 , 587 P2d 514 (1978); see also State v. Love, 38 Or App 459 , 590 P2d 741 , rev den 286 Or 303 (1979). 3 Although the failure of an accusatory instrument to state facts sufficient to charge a crime may be raised at any time, State v. Hunt, 3 Or App 634 , 475 P2d 596 , rev den (1970), a defendant cannot bar reprosecution by waiting until the close of the state’s case and rai 1986See, e.g., State v. Cho, 65 Or App 442 , 671 P2d 1181 (1983) , rev’d on other grounds 297 Or 195 , 681 P2d 1152 (1984) ; State v. Goakey, 47 Or App 31 , 613 P2d 1074 rev den 289 Or 677 (1980); State v. Picard, 37 Or App 483 , 587 P2d 514 (1978); see also State v. Love, 38 Or App 459 , 590 P2d 741 , rev den 286 Or 303 (1979). 3 Although the failure of an accusatory instrument to state facts sufficient to charge a crime may be raised at any time, State v. Hunt, 3 Or App 634 , 475 P2d 596 , rev den (1970), a defendant cannot bar reprosecution by waiting until the close of the state’s case and rai	1	1
County Treasurer v. Bunburygreen mich · 1881 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1908–1908 2 sentences 1908There is no relation of principal and agent, or trustee or cestui que trust, existing between the taxpayers and the collector; and it does not appear but that it was paid by them voluntarily, and under circumstances which would prevent their recovering it back from any one.” Similar language was used in Berrien County Treasurer v. Bunbury, 45 Mich. 79, 85 ( 7 N. W. 704, 706 ): “He received it in payment of taxes, and as money belonging to the public. 1908There is no relation of principal and agent, or trustee or cestui que trust, existing between the taxpayers and the collector; and it does not appear but that it was paid by them voluntarily, and under circumstances which would prevent their recovering it back from any one.” Similar language was used in Berrien County Treasurer v. Bunbury, 45 Mich. 79, 85 ( 7 N. W. 704, 706 ): “He received it in payment of taxes, and as money belonging to the public.	1	1
Reading v. Beardsleygreen mich · 1879 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1897–1897 1 sentence 1897That the plaintiff produced more evidence than he was bound to do is a matter for which the defendant cannot claim a reversal.” There are numerous authorities supporting the rule as laid down in 16 U. S. (3 Wheat.) 172 , and, although there are some to the contrary, we believe that case enunciates the better doctrine: See also Reading v. Beardsley, 41 Mich. 123 ( 1 N. W. 565 ); Withered v. Ela, 42 N. H. 295; Nevins v. De Grand, 15 Mass. 435 ; Dollefus v. Frosch, 1 Denio, 367 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Aiken v. Aiken green or · 1885 2 sentences 2023Similarly, in Altree v. Moore, 1 Or 350, 352 (1861), the court noted that, in an FED action, a defendant cannot claim title as a defense and that if “he, defendant, have a title paramount, he must assert it in a different manner.” In Aiken v. Aiken, 12 Or 203, 207-08 , 6 P 682 (1885), the court reversed an FED judgment and “remanded to the circuit court with directions to dismiss it for the want of jurisdiction of the justice’s court, and of [the circuit] court, upon appeal,” where the plaintiff widow claimed title to land through her husband, who had title before his death, and title was “nec 2023Similarly, in Altree v. Moore, 1 Or 350, 352 (1861), the court noted that, in an FED action, a defendant cannot claim title as a defense and that if “he, defendant, have a title paramount, he must assert it in a different manner.” In Aiken v. Aiken, 12 Or 203, 207-08 , 6 P 682 (1885), the court reversed an FED judgment and “remanded to the circuit court with directions to dismiss it for the want of jurisdiction of the justice’s court, and of [the circuit] court, upon appeal,” where the plaintiff widow claimed title to land through her husband, who had title before his death, and title was “nec	2	2023–2023
Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc. green or · 2001 2 sentences 2011Farmers urged that alternative motions for remittitur or new trial were the appropriate procedural means for raising its federal due process objection to the punitive damages award, citing Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc., 331 Or 537 , 558-59 n 14, 17 P3d 473 (2001) (party cannot challenge verdict for punitive damages as constitutionally excessive until after jury renders verdict; motion for new trial is among appropriate procedures for raising such challenge). 2011Farmers urged that alternative motions for remittitur or new trial were the appropriate procedural means for raising its federal due process objection to the punitive damages award, citing Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc., 331 Or 537 , 558-59 n 14, 17 P3d 473 (2001) (party cannot challenge verdict for punitive damages as constitutionally excessive until after jury renders verdict; motion for new trial is among appropriate procedures for raising such challenge).	1	2011–2011
State v. Picard neutral orctapp · 1978 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., State v. Cho, 65 Or App 442 , 671 P2d 1181 (1983) , rev’d on other grounds 297 Or 195 , 681 P2d 1152 (1984) ; State v. Goakey, 47 Or App 31 , 613 P2d 1074 rev den 289 Or 677 (1980); State v. Picard, 37 Or App 483 , 587 P2d 514 (1978); see also State v. Love, 38 Or App 459 , 590 P2d 741 , rev den 286 Or 303 (1979). 3 Although the failure of an accusatory instrument to state facts sufficient to charge a crime may be raised at any time, State v. Hunt, 3 Or App 634 , 475 P2d 596 , rev den (1970), a defendant cannot bar reprosecution by waiting until the close of the state’s case and rai 1986See, e.g., State v. Cho, 65 Or App 442 , 671 P2d 1181 (1983) , rev’d on other grounds 297 Or 195 , 681 P2d 1152 (1984) ; State v. Goakey, 47 Or App 31 , 613 P2d 1074 rev den 289 Or 677 (1980); State v. Picard, 37 Or App 483 , 587 P2d 514 (1978); see also State v. Love, 38 Or App 459 , 590 P2d 741 , rev den 286 Or 303 (1979). 3 Although the failure of an accusatory instrument to state facts sufficient to charge a crime may be raised at any time, State v. Hunt, 3 Or App 634 , 475 P2d 596 , rev den (1970), a defendant cannot bar reprosecution by waiting until the close of the state’s case and rai	1	1986–1986
State v. Goakey neutral orctapp · 1980 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., State v. Cho, 65 Or App 442 , 671 P2d 1181 (1983) , rev’d on other grounds 297 Or 195 , 681 P2d 1152 (1984) ; State v. Goakey, 47 Or App 31 , 613 P2d 1074 rev den 289 Or 677 (1980); State v. Picard, 37 Or App 483 , 587 P2d 514 (1978); see also State v. Love, 38 Or App 459 , 590 P2d 741 , rev den 286 Or 303 (1979). 3 Although the failure of an accusatory instrument to state facts sufficient to charge a crime may be raised at any time, State v. Hunt, 3 Or App 634 , 475 P2d 596 , rev den (1970), a defendant cannot bar reprosecution by waiting until the close of the state’s case and rai 1986See, e.g., State v. Cho, 65 Or App 442 , 671 P2d 1181 (1983) , rev’d on other grounds 297 Or 195 , 681 P2d 1152 (1984) ; State v. Goakey, 47 Or App 31 , 613 P2d 1074 rev den 289 Or 677 (1980); State v. Picard, 37 Or App 483 , 587 P2d 514 (1978); see also State v. Love, 38 Or App 459 , 590 P2d 741 , rev den 286 Or 303 (1979). 3 Although the failure of an accusatory instrument to state facts sufficient to charge a crime may be raised at any time, State v. Hunt, 3 Or App 634 , 475 P2d 596 , rev den (1970), a defendant cannot bar reprosecution by waiting until the close of the state’s case and rai	1	1986–1986
Holzmeyer v. Van Doren green or · 1943 2 sentences 1952It is true that gross negligence in some cases will preclude the relief of reformation, but this is not always so, for, as stated in Holzmeyer v. Van Doren, 172 Or 176, 189 , 139 P2d 778 , a universal formula cannot be adopted which will define the degree of carelessness which would bar a party from the right to seek equitable relief. 1952It is true that gross negligence in some cases will preclude the relief of reformation, but this is not always so, for, as stated in Holzmeyer v. Van Doren, 172 Or 176, 189 , 139 P2d 778 , a universal formula cannot be adopted which will define the degree of carelessness which would bar a party from the right to seek equitable relief.	1	1952–1952
People Ex Rel. Martin v. . Brown neutral ny · 1873 1 sentence 1908In People ex rel. v. Brown, 55 N. Y. 180, 187 , where the validity of the tax was questioned by the collector, the court say: “The defendant cannot claim to retain the money as the representative of the taxpayers.	1	1908–1908
Dollfus v. Frosch neutral nycterr · 1845 1 sentence 1897That the plaintiff produced more evidence than he was bound to do is a matter for which the defendant cannot claim a reversal.” There are numerous authorities supporting the rule as laid down in 16 U. S. (3 Wheat.) 172 , and, although there are some to the contrary, we believe that case enunciates the better doctrine: See also Reading v. Beardsley, 41 Mich. 123 ( 1 N. W. 565 ); Withered v. Ela, 42 N. H. 295; Nevins v. De Grand, 15 Mass. 435 ; Dollefus v. Frosch, 1 Denio, 367 .	1	1897–1897
Dugan v. United States green · 1818 1 sentence 1897That the plaintiff produced more evidence than he was bound to do is a matter for which the defendant cannot claim a reversal.” There are numerous authorities supporting the rule as laid down in 16 U. S. (3 Wheat.) 172 , and, although there are some to the contrary, we believe that case enunciates the better doctrine: See also Reading v. Beardsley, 41 Mich. 123 ( 1 N. W. 565 ); Withered v. Ela, 42 N. H. 295; Nevins v. De Grand, 15 Mass. 435 ; Dollefus v. Frosch, 1 Denio, 367 .	1	1897–1897

Where else courts name it

IL 96 (1941–2026) OH 80 (1998–2026) WA 47 (1904–2026) TX 43 (1855–2023) PA 39 (1907–2025) CA 38 (1963–2026) NY 34 (1873–2025) LA 27 (1920–2019) KS 20 (1885–2024) AL 20 (1912–2009) CT 18 (1983–2018) MI 13 (1886–2023) FL 12 (1947–2015) MA 10 (1942–2025) IN 10 (1983–2019) NM 9 (1938–2023) MO 8 (1990–2014) AZ 8 (1973–2025) OR 8 (1897–2023) DC 6 (1994–2016) CO 6 (1990–2025) NC 6 (1978–2001) SD 5 (1975–2014) WI 5 (1975–1993) ID 5 (2008–2026) MT 4 (1980–2016) MS 4 (2015–2026) VA 4 (1990–2014) VT 4 (2003–2007) NJ 3 (1905–1983) KY 3 (1934–2025) RI 3 (1980–1990) UT 3 (1968–2019) IA 3 (2018–2024) ME 3 (1975–1996) AR 2 (2009–2009) ND 2 (1962–2023) AK 2 (1981–2010) DE 2 (2020–2025)

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