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.
7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
SAIF Corp. v. Banderasgreen2 sentences2026However, when one party requests reconsideration of a closed claim, a medical arbiter examination is conducted, and “impair- ment is established based on objective findings of the med- ical arbiter, except where a preponderance of the medical evidence demonstrates that different findings by the attend- ing physician are more accurate and should be used.” OAR 436-035-0007(5)(b); see also SAIF v. Banderas, 252 Or App 136, 144-45 , 286 P3d 1237 (2012) (“Where the attending physician has provided an opinion of impairment and the board does not expressly reject that opinion, OAR 436-035- 0007(5) ex 2026However, when one party requests reconsideration of a closed claim, a medical arbiter examination is conducted, and “impair- ment is established based on objective findings of the med- ical arbiter, except where a preponderance of the medical evidence demonstrates that different findings by the attend- ing physician are more accurate and should be used.” OAR 436-035-0007(5)(b); see also SAIF v. Banderas, 252 Or App 136, 144-45 , 286 P3d 1237 (2012) (“Where the attending physician has provided an opinion of impairment and the board does not expressly reject that opinion, OAR 436-035- 0007(5) ex | 1 | 1 |
Simi v. LTI Inc. - Lynden Inc.green1 sentence2021See id. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Oregonian Publishing Co. v. Deizgreen1 sentence1987See Deiz, 289 Or at 290 (Linde, J., concurring). 6 Because we hold that the closed hearing provision of ORS 136.617, as enacted, violates Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution, it is unnecessary for us to address the plaintiffs’ contention that the judge’s application of ORS 136.617 to close the hearing at issue in this case violated section 10. | 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. Mansor
green
1 sentence2022Merely attaching the affidavit or an exhibit with an attached affidavit to the warrant, without some textual reference, creates the ambiguous situation apparently present here.” Mansor II, 363 Or at 204 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. SP
green
2 sentences2013Dept. v. S. P., 346 Or 592, 606 , 215 P3d 847 (2009), we begin by examining defendant’s arguments that the closed hearing provision of OEC 412 violates the Oregon Constitution. 2013Dept. v. S. P., 346 Or 592, 606 , 215 P3d 847 (2009), we begin by examining defendant’s arguments that the closed hearing provision of OEC 412 violates the Oregon Constitution. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'Leary
green
1 sentence2012The court noted that “not every proceeding involving the administration of justice, in the general sense of that term, need be open to the public.” Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Stalder v. Board of Medical Examiners
neutral
2 sentences1981That statute provides that: "(1) Any information provided to the board pursuant to ORS 677.200, 677.205 or 677.410 to 677.425 is confidential and shall not be subject to public disclosure, nor shall it be admissible as evidence in any judicial proceeding.” As this court stated in Stalder v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 37 Or App 853, 862 , 588 P2d 659 (1978), "That provision cannot reasonably be read to apply to adminstrative proceedings brought by the Board against the person who was the subject of the investigation * * Whatever protection is needed for the Board’s investigative sources and the 1981That statute provides that: "(1) Any information provided to the board pursuant to ORS 677.200, 677.205 or 677.410 to 677.425 is confidential and shall not be subject to public disclosure, nor shall it be admissible as evidence in any judicial proceeding.” As this court stated in Stalder v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 37 Or App 853, 862 , 588 P2d 659 (1978), "That provision cannot reasonably be read to apply to adminstrative proceedings brought by the Board against the person who was the subject of the investigation * * Whatever protection is needed for the Board’s investigative sources and the | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.