Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Adamsgreen1 sentence2008See State v. Atkinson, 305 Or 295, 302-03 , 751 P2d 784 (1988) (Gillette, J., dissenting) (so noting). 5 Although other provisions of the motor vehicle code were amended by the 2001 legislature and some of those amendments went into effect immediately, ORS 809.440 was not amended by the 2001 legislature. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Atkinsongreen1 sentence2008See State v. Atkinson, 305 Or 295, 302-03 , 751 P2d 784 (1988) (Gillette, J., dissenting) (so noting). 5 Although other provisions of the motor vehicle code were amended by the 2001 legislature and some of those amendments went into effect immediately, ORS 809.440 was not amended by the 2001 legislature. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Tooley
green
2 sentences1988The Court of Appeals, citing State v. Tooley, 297 Or 602 , 687 P2d 1068 (1984) and State v. Adams, 78 Or App 428 , 717 P2d 212 (1986), in effect held that the suspension of Dooney’s driver’s license was not valid because the Motor Vehicles Division (MVD) failed to give him the required statutory notice that he was entitled to a presuspension hearing. 1988The Court of Appeals, citing State v. Tooley, 297 Or 602 , 687 P2d 1068 (1984) and State v. Adams, 78 Or App 428 , 717 P2d 212 (1986), in effect held that the suspension of Dooney’s driver’s license was not valid because the Motor Vehicles Division (MVD) failed to give him the required statutory notice that he was entitled to a presuspension hearing. | 6 | 1985–1988 |
State v. Adams
green
2 sentences1988App. 428 , 717 P.2d 212 (1986), in effect held that the suspension of Dooney's driver's license was not valid because the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) failed to give him the required statutory notice that he was entitled to a presuspension hearing. 1988The Court of Appeals, citing State v. Tooley, 297 Or 602 , 687 P2d 1068 (1984) and State v. Adams, 78 Or App 428 , 717 P2d 212 (1986), in effect held that the suspension of Dooney’s driver’s license was not valid because the Motor Vehicles Division (MVD) failed to give him the required statutory notice that he was entitled to a presuspension hearing. | 2 | 1986–1988 |
Dixon v. Love
green
2 sentences2008However, by the time that the statute went into effect, the United States Supreme Court had decided in Dixon v. Love, 431 US 105 , 97 S Ct 1723 , 52 L Ed 2d 172 (1977), that, consistently with the Due Process Clause, most suspensions of driving privileges do not require a presuspension hearing. 2008However, by the time that the statute went into effect, the United States Supreme Court had decided in Dixon v. Love, 431 US 105 , 97 S Ct 1723 , 52 L Ed 2d 172 (1977), that, consistently with the Due Process Clause, most suspensions of driving privileges do not require a presuspension hearing. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence1986In Jones , we determined that Tooley was decided on statutory rather than constitutional grounds and held that former ORS 486.221 grants more protection to a licensee than does the federal Due Process Clause, 76 Or App at 162 , and that, under the statute, defendant was entitled to notice of, and an opportunity for, a presuspension hearing. 3 In this case the license suspension notice was defective in the same way as the notice in Tooley . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.