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 2014–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jenkins v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervisiongreen2 sentences2023Among other purposes, the substantial-reason requirement ensures “meaningful judicial review.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see id. at 195-96 (explaining that, “to the extent that the substantial reason requirement inheres in an agen- cy’s duty to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, the substantial reason requirement concerns the reviewability of the agency’s orders”). 2023Among other purposes, the substantial-reason requirement ensures “meaningful judicial review.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see id. at 195-96 (explaining that, “to the extent that the substantial reason requirement inheres in an agen- cy’s duty to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, the substantial reason requirement concerns the reviewability of the agency’s orders”). | 2 | 3 |
Lockett v. Teacher Standards & Practices Comm'ngreen1 sentence2022See Lockett, 289 Or App at 599 (“Implicit in the requirement that the order be supported by substantial evidence is a requirement that the agency’s findings and conclusions be supported by ‘sub- stantial reason.’ ” (Additional internal quotation marks and brackets omitted.)); see also Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 195 , 335 P3d 828 (2014) (the substantial-reason requirement means that an agency must articulate the con- nection between the facts that it found and the conclusions it draws). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
SAIF v. Coria
green
2 sentences2024Among other purposes, the substantial- reason requirement ensures meaningful judicial review.” SAIF v. Coria, 371 Or 1, 12 , 528 P3d 785 (2023) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2024Among other purposes, the substantial- reason requirement ensures meaningful judicial review.” SAIF v. Coria, 371 Or 1, 12 , 528 P3d 785 (2023) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Drew v. Psychiatric Security Review Board
green
2 sentences2018However, on remand, if DMAP adheres to its determination that "[a]ll of the issues in the case have been resolved without the need to hold a hearing," OAR 137-003-0515(4)(b), DMAP must explain that determination in a manner that permits meaningful judicial review, see Drew , 322 Or. at 500 -01 , 909 P.2d 1211 (listing the "practical reasons" for the substantial-reason requirement, including to "facilitate[ ] meaningful judicial review" (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2018However, on remand, if DMAP adheres to its determination that "[a]ll of the issues in the case have been resolved without the need to hold a hearing," OAR 137-003-0515(4)(b), DMAP must explain that determination in a manner that permits meaningful judicial review, see Drew , 322 Or. at 500 -01 , 909 P.2d 1211 (listing the "practical reasons" for the substantial-reason requirement, including to "facilitate[ ] meaningful judicial review" (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Rogue Advocates v. Jackson County
green
1 sentence2018App. 381 , 389, 385 P.3d 1262 (2016) (to satisfy the substantial-reason requirement, "an agency order must supply an explanation connecting the facts of the case and the result reached"). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Jenkins v. Board of Parole
green
1 sentence2014After J examining the statutory text, context, and legislature his- tory of the 1999 amendment, the dissent concluded that “the legislature intended to relieve the board of the substantial- reason requirement otherwise implicit in the judicial-review provisions of ORS 183.482(8).” Id. at 452 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.