8 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
North Harbour Corp. v. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2013Rather, it requires an exemption statute be construed reasonably, giving due consideration to the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute and the legislative intent.” North Harbour Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 16 OTR 91, 95 (2002). 2013Rather, it requires an exemption statute be construed reasonably, giving due consideration to the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute and the legislative intent.” North Harbour Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 16 OTR 91, 95 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Feves v. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2012ORS 305.427.4 A “[p]reponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971). /// 3 TCR 47 is made applicable through the Preface to the Magistrate Division Rules, which state in pertinent part that “[i]f circumstances arise that are not covered by a Magistrate Division rule, rules of the Regular Division of the Tax Court may be used as a guide to the extent relevant.” 4 All references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2009. 2012ORS 305.427.4 A “[p]reponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971). /// 3 TCR 47 is made applicable through the Preface to the Magistrate Division Rules, which state in pertinent part that “[i]f circumstances arise that are not covered by a Magistrate Division rule, rules of the Regular Division of the Tax Court may be used as a guide to the extent relevant.” 4 All references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2009. | 1 | 1 |
Hamilton v. Moongreen2 sentences2001See Hamilton v. Moon, 130 Or App 403 , 882 P2d 1134 (1994) (affirming trial court’s ruling that action was time-barred where the plaintiff brought action naming incorrect defendant, then, after the statute of limitations had run, filed an amended complaint naming the correct defendant, but the new defendant did not have notice of the action within the period of limitations). 2001See Hamilton v. Moon, 130 Or App 403 , 882 P2d 1134 (1994) (affirming trial court’s ruling that action was time-barred where the plaintiff brought action naming incorrect defendant, then, after the statute of limitations had run, filed an amended complaint naming the correct defendant, but the new defendant did not have notice of the action within the period of limitations). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Taal v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
green
2 sentences2018“Credibility questions are for the fact finder; they are not for the court to resolve in dealing with contradictory evidence in a summary judgment setting.” Taal v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 106 Or App 488, 494 , 809 P2d 3 TCR 47 is made applicable through the preface to the rules of the Magistrate Division, which states that “[i]f circumstances arise that are not covered by a Magistrate Division rule, the rules of the Regular Division may be used as a guide to the extent relevant.” 4 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2015. 2018“Credibility questions are for the fact finder; they are not for the court to resolve in dealing with contradictory evidence in a summary judgment setting.” Taal v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 106 Or App 488, 494 , 809 P2d 3 TCR 47 is made applicable through the preface to the rules of the Magistrate Division, which states that “[i]f circumstances arise that are not covered by a Magistrate Division rule, the rules of the Regular Division may be used as a guide to the extent relevant.” 4 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2015. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Comcast Corp. v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2016Oregon courts “potentially also consider the overall statutory scheme in which a legal term appears, as well as the meaning that the term has for regulators who oversee the field.” Id. (citation omitted). /// 2 TCR 47 is made applicable through the preface to the rules of the Magistrate Division, which states that “[i]f circumstances arise that are not covered by a Magistrate Division rule, the rules of the Regular Division may be used as a guide to the extent relevant.” ORDER TC-MD 150396N 4 Plaintiff argues that the phrase “nonprofit corporation” is composed of two terms of common or general 2016Oregon courts “potentially also consider the overall statutory scheme in which a legal term appears, as well as the meaning that the term has for regulators who oversee the field.” Id. (citation omitted). /// 2 TCR 47 is made applicable through the preface to the rules of the Magistrate Division, which states that “[i]f circumstances arise that are not covered by a Magistrate Division rule, the rules of the Regular Division may be used as a guide to the extent relevant.” ORDER TC-MD 150396N 4 Plaintiff argues that the phrase “nonprofit corporation” is composed of two terms of common or general | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2014FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130347D 3 PGE, 317 Or at 611 ; State v. Gaines (Gaines), 346 Or 160, 171 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009). 2014FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130347D 3 PGE, 317 Or at 611 ; State v. Gaines (Gaines), 346 Or 160, 171 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Gaines
green
2 sentences2014FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130347D 3 PGE, 317 Or at 611 ; State v. Gaines (Gaines), 346 Or 160, 171 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009). 2014FINAL DECISION TC-MD 130347D 3 PGE, 317 Or at 611 ; State v. Gaines (Gaines), 346 Or 160, 171 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Freitag v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2012The court will not weigh the evidence; rather, it will consider the entire record and afford the nonmoving party all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to that party.” Freitag v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 368 , 373- 74 (2005) (citations omitted). 2012The court will not weigh the evidence; rather, it will consider the entire record and afford the nonmoving party all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to that party.” Freitag v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 368 , 373- 74 (2005) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Poddar v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 554 . 2010Id. at 554 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Richlick v. Relco Equipment, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001TCR 23 C is made applicable through the MDR Preface, which states, in part, that “[i]f circumstances arise that are not covered by a Magistrate Division rule, rules of the Regular Division of the Tax Court may be used as a guide to the extent relevant.” See Harmon v. Fred Meyer, 146 Or App 295, 298 , 933 P2d 361 (1997) (citing Richlick v. Relco Equipment, Inc., 120 Or App 81, 85 , 852 P2d 240 (1993) for its holding that an amendment changing the defendant will relate back under ORCP 23 C only if the new defendant received notice of the action within the limitation period specified by statute). 2001TCR 23 C is made applicable through the MDR Preface, which states, in part, that “[i]f circumstances arise that are not covered by a Magistrate Division rule, rules of the Regular Division of the Tax Court may be used as a guide to the extent relevant.” See Harmon v. Fred Meyer, 146 Or App 295, 298 , 933 P2d 361 (1997) (citing Richlick v. Relco Equipment, Inc., 120 Or App 81, 85 , 852 P2d 240 (1993) for its holding that an amendment changing the defendant will relate back under ORCP 23 C only if the new defendant received notice of the action within the limitation period specified by statute). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Harmon v. Meyer
green
2 sentences2001TCR 23 C is made applicable through the MDR Preface, which states, in part, that “[i]f circumstances arise that are not covered by a Magistrate Division rule, rules of the Regular Division of the Tax Court may be used as a guide to the extent relevant.” See Harmon v. Fred Meyer, 146 Or App 295, 298 , 933 P2d 361 (1997) (citing Richlick v. Relco Equipment, Inc., 120 Or App 81, 85 , 852 P2d 240 (1993) for its holding that an amendment changing the defendant will relate back under ORCP 23 C only if the new defendant received notice of the action within the limitation period specified by statute). 2001TCR 23 C is made applicable through the MDR Preface, which states, in part, that “[i]f circumstances arise that are not covered by a Magistrate Division rule, rules of the Regular Division of the Tax Court may be used as a guide to the extent relevant.” See Harmon v. Fred Meyer, 146 Or App 295, 298 , 933 P2d 361 (1997) (citing Richlick v. Relco Equipment, Inc., 120 Or App 81, 85 , 852 P2d 240 (1993) for its holding that an amendment changing the defendant will relate back under ORCP 23 C only if the new defendant received notice of the action within the limitation period specified by statute). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.