8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2002The court held in Koskela that: (1) a claimant whose claim has been accepted has a significant property interest in receiving permanent total disability benefits, 331 Or. at 378-79 , 15 P.3d 548 ; (2) because a worker seeking permanent total disability benefits must establish willingness to work and reasonable efforts to find suitable employment, and because those elements "require judgment about the worker's credibility and veracity," the probable value of an oral hearing is substantial, id. at 381 , 15 P.3d 548 ; and (3) the additional cost of providing a hearing is minimal compared to the m 2002The court held in Koskela that: (1) a claimant whose claim has been accepted has a significant property interest in receiving permanent total disability benefits, 331 Or. at 378-79 , 15 P.3d 548 ; (2) because a worker seeking permanent total disability benefits must establish willingness to work and reasonable efforts to find suitable employment, and because those elements "require judgment about the worker's credibility and veracity," the probable value of an oral hearing is substantial, id. at 381 , 15 P.3d 548 ; and (3) the additional cost of providing a hearing is minimal compared to the m | 1 | 4 |
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2002Applying the familiar three-part analysis of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), the court held: (1) a claimant whose claim has been accepted has a significant property interest in receiving permanent total disability benefits, Koskela, 331 Or. at 378-79 , 15 P.3d 548 ; (2) because a worker seeking permanent total disability benefits must establish willingness to work and reasonable efforts to find suitable employment, and because those elements "require judgment about the worker's credibility and veracity," the probable value of an oral hearing is sub 2002Applying the familiar three-part analysis of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), the court held: (1) a claimant whose claim has been accepted has a significant property interest in receiving permanent total disability benefits, Koskela, 331 Or. at 378-79 , 15 P.3d 548 ; (2) because a worker seeking permanent total disability benefits must establish willingness to work and reasonable efforts to find suitable employment, and because those elements "require judgment about the worker's credibility and veracity," the probable value of an oral hearing is sub | 1 | 3 |
State v. Kendallgreen1 sentence1992See State v. Kendall, 96 Or App 735 , 773 P2d 1362 , rev den 308 Or 382 (1989); State v. McDaniel, 96 Or App 337 , 772 P2d 951 , rev den 308 Or 382 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kendallgreen1 sentence1992See State v. Kendall, 96 Or App 735 , 773 P2d 1362 , rev den 308 Or 382 (1989); State v. McDaniel, 96 Or App 337 , 772 P2d 951 , rev den 308 Or 382 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Everett v. Premo
green
1 sentence2018We turn to the second-and, in this case, dispositive-prong in our analysis to determine whether trial counsel's "acts or omissions could have tended to affect the outcome of the case." Id ."That standard requires a determination that there is more than mere possibility, but less than probability that counsel's inadequacy affected the outcome of the proceeding." Everett , 279 Or. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hayward v. Belleque
green
1 sentence2018"Whether a petitioner has demonstrated prejudice is a question of law that, in turn, may depend on predicate findings of fact." Hayward v. Belleque , 248 Or. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Fister v. South Hills Health Care
green
2 sentences2002Because the medical arbiter’s decision is not that kind of decision, I concur with the majority’s result that the due process clause does not require an oral hearing. 2 Fister v. South Hills Health Care, 149 Or App 214 , 942 P2d 833 (1997), rev den 326 Or 389 (1998). 2002Because the medical arbiter’s decision is not that kind of decision, I concur with the majority’s result that the due process clause does not require an oral hearing. 2 Fister v. South Hills Health Care, 149 Or App 214 , 942 P2d 833 (1997), rev den 326 Or 389 (1998). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Trujillo v. Pacific Safety Supply
green
2 sentences2002I respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in my dissents in Logsdon v. SAIF, 181 Or.App. 317 , 45 P.3d 990 (2002) (Wollheim, J., dissenting), and Trujillo v. Pacific Safety Supply, 181 Or.App. 302 , 45 P.3d 1017 (2002) (Wollheim, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 2002I respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in my dissents in Logsdon v. SAIF, 181 Or.App. 317 , 45 P.3d 990 (2002) (Wollheim, J., dissenting), and Trujillo v. Pacific Safety Supply, 181 Or.App. 302 , 45 P.3d 1017 (2002) (Wollheim, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Logsdon v. SAIF Corp.
green
2 sentences2002I respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in my dissents in Logsdon v. SAIF, 181 Or.App. 317 , 45 P.3d 990 (2002) (Wollheim, J., dissenting), and Trujillo v. Pacific Safety Supply, 181 Or.App. 302 , 45 P.3d 1017 (2002) (Wollheim, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 2002I respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in my dissents in Logsdon v. SAIF, 181 Or.App. 317 , 45 P.3d 990 (2002) (Wollheim, J., dissenting), and Trujillo v. Pacific Safety Supply, 181 Or.App. 302 , 45 P.3d 1017 (2002) (Wollheim, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
SAIF Corp. v. Fister
neutral
2 sentences2002As we pointed out in SAIF v. Fister, 177 Or.App. 13, 15 , 33 P.3d 320 (2001), the determination of a claimant's BFC is a complicated application of a complex administrative rule. 2002As we pointed out in SAIF v. Fister, 177 Or.App. 13, 15 , 33 P.3d 320 (2001), the determination of a claimant's BFC is a complicated application of a complex administrative rule. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Califano v. Yamasaki
green
2 sentences1999The Court approved administrative rules providing only for "`a short personal conference with an impartial employee of the Social Security Administration.'" Id. (quoting from the respondent's brief). 1999The Court approved administrative rules providing only for “ ‘a short personal conference with an impartial employee of the Social Security Administration.’ ” Id. (quoting from the respondent’s brief). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Cordray
green
2 sentences1992We have held that an oral waiver is not sufficient, see State v. Cordray, 91 Or App 436, 438 , 755 P2d 735 (1988), and that the lack of an objection to proceeding without a written waiver is not fatal on appeal. 1992We have held that an oral waiver is not sufficient, see State v. Cordray, 91 Or App 436, 438 , 755 P2d 735 (1988), and that the lack of an objection to proceeding without a written waiver is not fatal on appeal. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. McDaniel
green
2 sentences1992See State v. Kendall, 96 Or App 735 , 773 P2d 1362 , rev den 308 Or 382 (1989); State v. McDaniel, 96 Or App 337 , 772 P2d 951 , rev den 308 Or 382 (1989). 1992See State v. Kendall, 96 Or App 735 , 773 P2d 1362 , rev den 308 Or 382 (1989); State v. McDaniel, 96 Or App 337 , 772 P2d 951 , rev den 308 Or 382 (1989). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.