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.
6 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2021–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Schwartzgreen2 sentences2025Because subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, we address his stand-alone claim and need not consider whether the trial court erred at the form of judgment hearing, as father asserts. *676 and Battini, 289 Or App 332, 338 , 410 P3d 319, 323 (2017) (“Oregon law with respect to subject matter jurisdiction generally, and with respect to the UCCJEA specifically, is unequivocal that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, waiver, or estoppel and may be raised at any time.”). 2025Because subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, we address his stand-alone claim and need not consider whether the trial court erred at the form of judgment hearing, as father asserts. *676 and Battini, 289 Or App 332, 338 , 410 P3d 319, 323 (2017) (“Oregon law with respect to subject matter jurisdiction generally, and with respect to the UCCJEA specifically, is unequivocal that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, waiver, or estoppel and may be raised at any time.”). | 2 | 2 |
Vergara v. Patelgreen1 sentence2021Vergara, 305 Or App at 297 (explaining that, in light of the allegations describing the defendant’s relationship to the plaintiff, the “operative words” in the complaint were “dba University Inns & Suites”). | 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. Black
green
2 sentences2025The mere fact that the record at the hearing on remand differs under the correct legal standard does not appear to justify putting the parties and the court system to the expense of a new trial. * * * I would interpret Hightower as holding that a new trial is required when a stand-alone hearing on remand will not fairly serve to adjudicate the issue that the trial court initially decided incorrectly.” 317 Or App 181, 186-87 , 504 P3d 691 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 318 Or App 651 , 509 P3d 192 (2022) (Kistler, S. J., concurring). 2025The mere fact that the record at the hearing on remand differs under the correct legal standard does not appear to justify putting the parties and the court system to the expense of a new trial. * * * I would interpret Hightower as holding that a new trial is required when a stand-alone hearing on remand will not fairly serve to adjudicate the issue that the trial court initially decided incorrectly.” 317 Or App 181, 186-87 , 504 P3d 691 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 318 Or App 651 , 509 P3d 192 (2022) (Kistler, S. J., concurring). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Black
neutral
2 sentences2025The mere fact that the record at the hearing on remand differs under the correct legal standard does not appear to justify putting the parties and the court system to the expense of a new trial. * * * I would interpret Hightower as holding that a new trial is required when a stand-alone hearing on remand will not fairly serve to adjudicate the issue that the trial court initially decided incorrectly.” 317 Or App 181, 186-87 , 504 P3d 691 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 318 Or App 651 , 509 P3d 192 (2022) (Kistler, S. J., concurring). 2025The mere fact that the record at the hearing on remand differs under the correct legal standard does not appear to justify putting the parties and the court system to the expense of a new trial. * * * I would interpret Hightower as holding that a new trial is required when a stand-alone hearing on remand will not fairly serve to adjudicate the issue that the trial court initially decided incorrectly.” 317 Or App 181, 186-87 , 504 P3d 691 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 318 Or App 651 , 509 P3d 192 (2022) (Kistler, S. J., concurring). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Hightower
green
1 sentence2022Because the trial court did not do that in the first instance, and because the record could have developed differently if it had, a new trial was required.” 368 Or at 393 . 2 On remand, a trial court will presumably have to rule on the issue it initially decided incorrectly regardless of whether it holds a new trial or only a stand-alone hearing. *187 remand differs under the correct legal standard does not appear to justify putting the parties and the court system to the expense of a new trial. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.