8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Flatley v. Maurogreen2 sentences2025Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal 4th 299, 323-24, 139 P3d 2, 18 (2006). 2025Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal 4th 299, 323-24, 139 P3d 2, 18 (2006). | 3 | 3 |
Reynolds v. Schrockgreen2 sentences2016See Reynolds v. Schrock, 341 Or 338, 351 , 142 P3d 1062 (2006) (discussing similar principles based on the litigation privilege). 2016See Reynolds v. Schrock, 341 Or 338, 351 , 142 P3d 1062 (2006) (discussing similar principles based on the litigation privilege). | 2 | 2 |
Plotkin v. State Accident Insurance Fundgreen2 sentences2023See Plotkin, 280 Or App at 829 (noting that we have yet to address that 8 Indeed, plaintiff apparently raced defendant to the courthouse steps to file this action before defendant had an opportunity to prove her allegations in an appropriate public forum. 216 Davoodian v. Rivera issue). 2023See Plotkin, 280 Or App at 829 (noting that we have yet to address that 8 Indeed, plaintiff apparently raced defendant to the courthouse steps to file this action before defendant had an opportunity to prove her allegations in an appropriate public forum. 216 Davoodian v. Rivera issue). | 2 | 2 |
Mantia v. Hansongreen2 sentences2023See Mantia v. Hanson, 190 Or App 412, 417-18 , 79 P3d 404 (2003) (litigation privilege provides immunity for conduct and statements made in connection with judicial proceedings, but there is an exception for “wrongful initiation” actions); see also Reynolds v. Schrock, 341 Or 338, 350 , 142 P3d 1062 (2006) (holding that “a lawyer acting on behalf of a client and within the scope of the lawyer-client relationship is protected by such a privilege and is not liable for assisting the client in conduct that breaches the client’s fiduciary duty to a third party.”). 2023See Mantia v. Hanson, 190 Or App 412, 417-18 , 79 P3d 404 (2003) (litigation privilege provides immunity for conduct and statements made in connection with judicial proceedings, but there is an exception for “wrongful initiation” actions); see also Reynolds v. Schrock, 341 Or 338, 350 , 142 P3d 1062 (2006) (holding that “a lawyer acting on behalf of a client and within the scope of the lawyer-client relationship is protected by such a privilege and is not liable for assisting the client in conduct that breaches the client’s fiduciary duty to a third party.”). | 1 | 1 |
City of Portland v. Bakergreen1 sentence2020State ex rel. v. Mart, 135 Or 603, 613 , 283 P 459 (1931); City of Portland v. Baker, 8 Or 356, 365 (1880). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wollam v. Brandt
green
2 sentences2024That also appears to be an open question, given that the privilege originally applied only to defamation actions but has been extended to “any tort action based on statements made in connection to a judicial proceeding.” Wollam v. Brandt, 154 Or App 156 , 162 n 5, 961 P2d 219 (1998) (emphasis added). 2024That also appears to be an open question, given that the privilege originally applied only to defamation actions but has been extended to “any tort action based on statements made in connection to a judicial proceeding.” Wollam v. Brandt, 154 Or App 156 , 162 n 5, 961 P2d 219 (1998) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Mohabeer v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
green
2 sentences2024Exchange, 318 Or App 313 , 318 n 3, 508 P3d 37 , rev den, 370 Or 212 (2022) (“The elements of a claim for wrongful ini- tiation of a civil proceeding are (1) commencement and pros- ecution by the defendant of a judicial proceeding against the plaintiff; (2) termination of the underlying proceeding in the plaintiff’s favor; (3) absence of probable cause to prosecute the underlying proceeding; (4) malice in initiating the under- lying proceeding; and (5) damages.” (Citation omitted.)). 592 Palmer v. Olson Alternatively, defendant argues that the litigation privilege does not apply to her federal 2024Exchange, 318 Or App 313 , 318 n 3, 508 P3d 37 , rev den, 370 Or 212 (2022) (“The elements of a claim for wrongful ini- tiation of a civil proceeding are (1) commencement and pros- ecution by the defendant of a judicial proceeding against the plaintiff; (2) termination of the underlying proceeding in the plaintiff’s favor; (3) absence of probable cause to prosecute the underlying proceeding; (4) malice in initiating the under- lying proceeding; and (5) damages.” (Citation omitted.)). 592 Palmer v. Olson Alternatively, defendant argues that the litigation privilege does not apply to her federal | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Chard v. Galton
green
2 sentences2024The absolute litigation privilege squarely applies to “statements or writings made during or as part of the litigation itself.” Chard v. Galton, 277 Or 109, 113 , 559 P2d 1280 (1977). 2024The absolute litigation privilege squarely applies to “statements or writings made during or as part of the litigation itself.” Chard v. Galton, 277 Or 109, 113 , 559 P2d 1280 (1977). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Martinez v. California
green
2 sentences2024Defendant points to Martinez v. California, 444 US 277 , 100 S Ct 553 , 62 L Ed 2d 481 (1980), where the Court explained that state law cannot immunize conduct that violates federal law, even when the federal cause of action is brought in state court. 2024Defendant points to Martinez v. California, 444 US 277 , 100 S Ct 553 , 62 L Ed 2d 481 (1980), where the Court explained that state law cannot immunize conduct that violates federal law, even when the federal cause of action is brought in state court. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Elkhorn Baptist Church v. Brown
green
1 sentence2020Cite as 366 Or 506 (2020) 519 ultimately prevail on the merits of its claim and whether, if the injunction is not issued, the party will be irreparably harmed during the litigation of the claim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State Ex Rel. Brookfield Co. v. Mart
neutral
1 sentence2020State ex rel. v. Mart, 135 Or 603, 613 , 283 P 459 (1931); City of Portland v. Baker, 8 Or 356, 365 (1880). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.