specified or implied requirement (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

specified or implied requirement in Oregon

8 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2023 3 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Murraygreen
or · 2006 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008“Adequate” means, as relevant here “equal to, proportionate to, or fully sufficient for a specified or implied requirement, often : narrowly or barely sufficient: no more than satisfactory.” Id. at 25.

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 (5)

CaseCitedYears
Dept. of Human Services v. B. B. neutral
orctapp · 2023
2 sentences

2023And “adequate” is defined as “equal to, proportionate to, or fully sufficient for a specified or implied requirement” and “legally sufficient: such as is lawfully and reasonably sufficient.” Id.

2023And “adequate” is defined as “equal to, proportionate to, or fully sufficient for a specified or implied requirement” and “legally sufficient: such as is lawfully and reasonably sufficient.” Id.

22023–2023
State v. Bordeaux green
orctapp · 2008
2 sentences

2014“Adequate” means, as relevant here “equal to, proportionate to, or fully sufficient for a specified or implied requirement, often : narrowly or barely sufficient: no more than satisfactory.” Id. at 25.’ “[State v. Bordeaux, 220 Or App 165, 172 , 185 P3d 524 (2008)].

2014“Adequate” means, as relevant here “equal to, proportionate to, or fully sufficient for a specified or implied requirement, often : narrowly or barely sufficient: no more than satisfactory.” Id. at 25.’ “[State v. Bordeaux, 220 Or App 165, 172 , 185 P3d 524 (2008)].

22011–2014
State v. Blair green
orctapp · 2009
2 sentences

2009"Adequate," in turn, is defined in part as "proportionate to, or fully sufficient for a specified or implied requirement; often: narrowly or barely sufficient: no more than satisfactory[.]" Id. (italics in original).

2009“Adequate,” in turn, is defined in part as “proportionate to, or fully sufficient for a specified or implied requirement; often : narrowly or barely sufficient : no more than satisfactory[.]” Id. (italics in original).

22009–2009
Anderson v. Klix Chemical Co. green
or · 1970
1 sentence

2021See Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 25 (unabridged ed 2002) (defining “adequate” as “equal to, proportionate to, or fully sufficient for a specified or implied requirement, often : narrowly or barely sufficient : no more than satisfactory”). 266 Purdy v. Deere & Co./Norton Without the instruction, the jury did not necessarily under- stand that the adequacy of a warning should be assessed from the standpoint of the reasonably prudent person, rather than from the perspective of the product’s user, and that it should take into account the warning’s form as well as its content, Anderson, 256

12021–2021
Schmeiser v. Trus Joist Corporation green
or · 1975
1 sentence

2021Schmeiser, 273 Or at 133 .

12021–2021

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.205 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.010 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check