8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1937–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Application of Portland General Elec. Co.green2 sentences2023See, e.g., Marbet v. Portland General Electric, 277 Or 447, 463 , 561 P2d 154 (1977) (in the context of energy facil- ity siting, agency must provide notice of a standard “suffi- ciently in advance of the final decision so that the applicant and other parties can address the import of the standard for the particular project”); Martini v. OLCC, 110 Or App 508, 513 , 823 P2d 1015 (1992) (agreeing with an agency “that it may make policy refinements in deciding contested cases and that those may include changes in its interpretations of statutes and rules” but also concluding that, when an agency 2023See, e.g., Marbet v. Portland General Electric, 277 Or 447, 463 , 561 P2d 154 (1977) (in the context of energy facil- ity siting, agency must provide notice of a standard “suffi- ciently in advance of the final decision so that the applicant and other parties can address the import of the standard for the particular project”); Martini v. OLCC, 110 Or App 508, 513 , 823 P2d 1015 (1992) (agreeing with an agency “that it may make policy refinements in deciding contested cases and that those may include changes in its interpretations of statutes and rules” but also concluding that, when an agency | 2 | 6 |
Livesay v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.green2 sentences1985See Livesay v. SAIF, 55 Or App 390 , 637 P2d 1370 (1981). 1985See Livesay v. SAIF, 55 Or App 390 , 637 P2d 1370 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martini v. Oregon Liquor Control Commission
green
2 sentences2023See, e.g., Marbet v. Portland General Electric, 277 Or 447, 463 , 561 P2d 154 (1977) (in the context of energy facil- ity siting, agency must provide notice of a standard “suffi- ciently in advance of the final decision so that the applicant and other parties can address the import of the standard for the particular project”); Martini v. OLCC, 110 Or App 508, 513 , 823 P2d 1015 (1992) (agreeing with an agency “that it may make policy refinements in deciding contested cases and that those may include changes in its interpretations of statutes and rules” but also concluding that, when an agency 2023See, e.g., Marbet v. Portland General Electric, 277 Or 447, 463 , 561 P2d 154 (1977) (in the context of energy facil- ity siting, agency must provide notice of a standard “suffi- ciently in advance of the final decision so that the applicant and other parties can address the import of the standard for the particular project”); Martini v. OLCC, 110 Or App 508, 513 , 823 P2d 1015 (1992) (agreeing with an agency “that it may make policy refinements in deciding contested cases and that those may include changes in its interpretations of statutes and rules” but also concluding that, when an agency | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Commonwealth Properties, Inc. v. Washington County
green
2 sentences2023At the same time, we recognized that a local government’s power to rely on broad standards in quasi-judicial proceed- ings is tempered by an applicant’s right to notice of the stan- dards to be applied: “It is not necessary that every standard used by an agency [be] specifically articulated prior to the initiation of an administrative proceeding ‘as long as it is in fact adopted as a standard * * * sufficiently in advance of the final decision so that the applicant * * * can address the import of the standard for a particular project * * *.’ ” Id. at 400 (quoting Marbet, 277 Or at 463 (ellipse 2023At the same time, we recognized that a local government’s power to rely on broad standards in quasi-judicial proceed- ings is tempered by an applicant’s right to notice of the stan- dards to be applied: “It is not necessary that every standard used by an agency [be] specifically articulated prior to the initiation of an administrative proceeding ‘as long as it is in fact adopted as a standard * * * sufficiently in advance of the final decision so that the applicant * * * can address the import of the standard for a particular project * * *.’ ” Id. at 400 (quoting Marbet, 277 Or at 463 (ellipse | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Kernin v. City of Coquille
green
2 sentences1937The only Oregon case cited in the opinion of the court upon the import of a presumption of law is Kernin v. City of Coquille, 143 Or. 127 ( 21 P. (2d) 1078 ). 1937The only Oregon case cited in the opinion of the court upon the import of a presumption of law is Kernin v. City of Coquille, 143 Or. 127 ( 21 P. (2d) 1078 ). | 1 | 1937–1937 |
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.