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 1996–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Wylliegreen2 sentences1999See In re Wyllie, 326 Or 447, 453-54 , 952 P2d 550 *215 (1997) (lawyer’s repeated appearances in court while under the influence of alcohol each violated DR 1-102(A)(4)). 1999See In re Wyllie, 326 Or 447, 453-54 , 952 P2d 550 *215 (1997) (lawyer’s repeated appearances in court while under the influence of alcohol each violated DR 1-102(A)(4)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nagelgreen2 sentences1996See State v. Nagel, 320 Or 24 , 880 P2d 451 (1994) (holding that the administration of field sobriety tests constitutes a search under the state and federal constitutions). 1996See State v. Nagel, 320 Or 24 , 880 P2d 451 (1994) (holding that the administration of field sobriety tests constitutes a search under the state and federal constitutions). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carter v. United States National Bank
green
2 sentences2003DMV’s motion for reconsideration made after entry of the March 6 order was the functional equivalent of a motion for a new trial made under ORCP 64 C. 5 See Carter v. U. S. National Bank, 304 Or 538, 544-46 , 747 P2d 980 (1987) (holding that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment order implicated ORCP 64 even though no judgment has been entered at the time); 6 see also Renfroe v. State of Oregon, 90 Or App 446, 448 , 752 P2d 1245 (1988). 7 The only ground applicable to this case under ORCP 64 B as incorporated by ORCP 64 C is section B(6). 2003DMV’s motion for reconsideration made after entry of the March 6 order was the functional equivalent of a motion for a new trial made under ORCP 64 C. 5 See Carter v. U. S. National Bank, 304 Or 538, 544-46 , 747 P2d 980 (1987) (holding that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment order implicated ORCP 64 even though no judgment has been entered at the time); 6 see also Renfroe v. State of Oregon, 90 Or App 446, 448 , 752 P2d 1245 (1988). 7 The only ground applicable to this case under ORCP 64 B as incorporated by ORCP 64 C is section B(6). | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Renfroe v. State
neutral
2 sentences2003DMV’s motion for reconsideration made after entry of the March 6 order was the functional equivalent of a motion for a new trial made under ORCP 64 C. 5 See Carter v. U. S. National Bank, 304 Or 538, 544-46 , 747 P2d 980 (1987) (holding that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment order implicated ORCP 64 even though no judgment has been entered at the time); 6 see also Renfroe v. State of Oregon, 90 Or App 446, 448 , 752 P2d 1245 (1988). 7 The only ground applicable to this case under ORCP 64 B as incorporated by ORCP 64 C is section B(6). 2003DMV’s motion for reconsideration made after entry of the March 6 order was the functional equivalent of a motion for a new trial made under ORCP 64 C. 5 See Carter v. U. S. National Bank, 304 Or 538, 544-46 , 747 P2d 980 (1987) (holding that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment order implicated ORCP 64 even though no judgment has been entered at the time); 6 see also Renfroe v. State of Oregon, 90 Or App 446, 448 , 752 P2d 1245 (1988). 7 The only ground applicable to this case under ORCP 64 B as incorporated by ORCP 64 C is section B(6). | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Murdoch v. DMV
neutral
1 sentence2022Cite as 370 Or 362 (2022) 371 responsibility for establishing the form in which information about rights and consequences is to be provided; permitting DMV to “establish any form it determines appropriate and convenient”). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2007Specifically, it could be argued that DMV's order "rests solely on the result of a test" because ORS 801.527 limits DMV's inquiry to whether or not the Datsun was "declared a total loss by an insurer that is obligated to cover the loss * * *." To determine the scope of the statutory exception, it is necessary to apply the statutory construction methodology set forth in PGE : first, we examine the statutory text in context to determine if it is ambiguous; second, if the statutory text is ambiguous, we examine the legislative history to resolve the ambiguity; and third, if the statutory text rem 2007Specifically, it could be argued that DMV's order "rests solely on the result of a test" because ORS 801.527 limits DMV's inquiry to whether or not the Datsun was "declared a total loss by an insurer that is obligated to cover the loss * * *." To determine the scope of the statutory exception, it is necessary to apply the statutory construction methodology set forth in PGE : first, we examine the statutory text in context to determine if it is ambiguous; second, if the statutory text is ambiguous, we examine the legislative history to resolve the ambiguity; and third, if the statutory text rem | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Complaint as to Conduct of Meyer
green
2 sentences2006In Meyer (I), 328 Or 211 , for example this court suspended a lawyer for 90 days after the lawyer had appeared at a DMV hearing while intoxicated. 2006In Meyer (I), 328 Or 211 , for example this court suspended a lawyer for 90 days after the lawyer had appeared at a DMV hearing while intoxicated. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In re Thompson
green
2 sentences2006In In re Thompson, 325 Or 467 , 940 P2d 512 (1997), this court suspended a lawyer for 63 days after he confronted an appellate judge about a recently issued decision. *34 Here, the accused’s conduct in both the Nutts’ state court and bankruptcy court proceedings constituted violations of DR 1-102(A)(4). 2006In In re Thompson, 325 Or 467 , 940 P2d 512 (1997), this court suspended a lawyer for 63 days after he confronted an appellate judge about a recently issued decision. *34 Here, the accused’s conduct in both the Nutts’ state court and bankruptcy court proceedings constituted violations of DR 1-102(A)(4). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Higgins v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Branch
green
2 sentences2003Higgins, 170 Or.App. at 547 , 13 P.3d 531 . 2003Higgins, 170 Or.App. at 547 , 13 P.3d 531 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.