in-depth analysis (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

in-depth analysis in Oregon

8 Oregon opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2026 5 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Johnsongreen
orctapp · 2023 · cited in 3 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2024–2026
2 sentences

2026See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 329 Or App 57, 63 , 540 P3d 73 (2023) (concluding that the defendant’s proposed interpretation of the statute was not plain because “[t]o conclusively resolve this legal issue of first impression, we would have to engage in an in-depth analysis of statu- tory text, context, and legislative history to a degree that 818 State v. C.

2026See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 329 Or App 57, 63 , 540 P3d 73 (2023) (concluding that the defendant’s proposed interpretation of the statute was not plain because “[t]o conclusively resolve this legal issue of first impression, we would have to engage in an in-depth analysis of statu- tory text, context, and legislative history to a degree that 818 State v. C.

33
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Paulsongreen
or · 2006 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010Cf. In re Paulson, 341 Or 13, 27 , 136 P3d 1087 (2006) (“[N]ot every negligent or unprofessional act * * * gives rise to an ethical violation!!]”). 3 We need not resolve the factual disputes inherent in the accused’s version of the facts to decide this case. 4 Although the accused began representing Ms. Nickerson in 2003, the conduct at issue on review occurred after January 1, 2005, the effective date of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct; therefore, those rules apply here. 5 In light of this case’s procedural posture, an in-depth analysis of our basis for imposing a public reprimand wo

2010Cf. In re Paulson, 341 Or 13, 27 , 136 P3d 1087 (2006) (“[N]ot every negligent or unprofessional act * * * gives rise to an ethical violation!!]”). 3 We need not resolve the factual disputes inherent in the accused’s version of the facts to decide this case. 4 Although the accused began representing Ms. Nickerson in 2003, the conduct at issue on review occurred after January 1, 2005, the effective date of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct; therefore, those rules apply here. 5 In light of this case’s procedural posture, an in-depth analysis of our basis for imposing a public reprimand wo

11

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
Norgard v. Rawlinsons & New System Laundry green
orctapp · 1977
2 sentences

2023I would not read the statute to necessarily mean that the employer’s conduct and knowl- edge are always imputed to the insurer in all contexts without a more in-depth analysis of the text, context, and history of the statute. 3 The Court of Appeals has applied the “legitimate doubt” standard in sev- eral cases, tracing back to Norgard v. Rawlinsons, 30 Or App 999 , 569 P2d 49 (1977).

2023I would not read the statute to necessarily mean that the employer’s conduct and knowl- edge are always imputed to the insurer in all contexts without a more in-depth analysis of the text, context, and history of the statute. 3 The Court of Appeals has applied the “legitimate doubt” standard in sev- eral cases, tracing back to Norgard v. Rawlinsons, 30 Or App 999 , 569 P2d 49 (1977).

12023–2023
Ybarra v. Dominguez Family Enterprises, Inc. green
orctapp · 2022
1 sentence

2022Cite as 322 Or App 798 (2022) 803 the corporation as a going concern, without application of minority or marketability discounts.” In short, in plain- tiff’s view (1) the court erred in ruling that it was required to apply the discounts in the absence of oppression and (2) minority or marketability discounts are never appropri- ate in determining fair value under ORS 60.952.

12022–2022
Kaady v. Department of Revenue green
ortc · 2000
1 sentence

2009ORS 305.275 requires that a taxpayer appealing to the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court be "aggrieved." This court has previously ruled that "[i]n requiring that taxpayers be `aggrieved' under ORS 305.275 , the legislature intended that the taxpayer have an immediate claim of wrong." Kaady v. Dept. of Rev. , 15 OTR 124 , 125 (2000).

12009–2009
Wong v. Tenneco, Inc. green
cal · 1985
1 sentence

2001A few years after Stockton, the California Supreme Court undertook a more in-depth analysis of Article 27 in Wong v. Tenneco, Inc., 39 Cal 3d 126, 216 Cal Rptr 412, 702 P2d 570 (1985).

12001–2001

Where else courts name it

CA 35 (1968–2024) IL 24 (1977–2024) PA 16 (1975–2025) TX 14 (1977–2022) NJ 13 (1987–2026) NY 13 (1979–2016) WA 12 (1972–2022) OH 12 (1980–2025) UT 10 (1986–2025) MS 9 (1992–2015) KS 9 (1981–2021) MD 9 (1974–2017) OR 8 (2001–2026) OK 7 (1979–2008) LA 7 (1986–2009) FL 6 (1991–2019) IN 6 (1991–2026) DC 6 (1978–2024) NM 5 (1991–2022) MI 5 (1979–2022) CO 5 (1991–2026) KY 4 (2004–2023) DE 4 (2014–2025) SD 4 (2006–2024) ID 4 (1991–2012) MO 3 (1981–1988) TN 3 (1998–2021) NC 3 (1982–2008) AK 3 (1994–1996) WY 3 (1989–2007) ND 3 (1980–2009) IA 2 (2016–2016) RI 2 (1993–2009) SC 2 (2008–2022) AR 2 (2007–2020) VT 2 (1990–2019)

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