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 1984–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Central School District 13J v. Central Education Ass'ngreen2 sentences2000See id. at 94 , 962 P.2d 763 ; see generally Olney School Dist. 11 v. Olney Education Assoc., 145 Or.App. 578 , 931 P.2d 804 (1997) (similarly concluding that ERB has considerable interpretative authority with regard to other provisions of ORS 243.672). [9] For that reason, a remand to permit ERB to explain its reasoning is appropriate, unless ERB's conclusion on motivation is supported by some other independent rationale. 2000See id. at 94 ; see generally Olney School Dist. 11 v. Olney Education Assoc., 145 Or App 578 , 931 P2d 804 (1997) (similarly concluding that ERB has considerable interpretative authority with regard to other provisions of ORS 243.672). 9 For that reason, a remand to permit ERB to explain its reasoning is appropriate, unless ERB’s conclusion on motivation is supported by some other independent rationale. | 2 | 2 |
Olney School District 11 v. Olney Education Ass'ngreen2 sentences2000See id. at 94 ; see generally Olney School Dist. 11 v. Olney Education Assoc., 145 Or App 578 , 931 P2d 804 (1997) (similarly concluding that ERB has considerable interpretative authority with regard to other provisions of ORS 243.672). 9 For that reason, a remand to permit ERB to explain its reasoning is appropriate, unless ERB’s conclusion on motivation is supported by some other independent rationale. 2000See id. at 94 ; see generally Olney School Dist. 11 v. Olney Education Assoc., 145 Or App 578 , 931 P2d 804 (1997) (similarly concluding that ERB has considerable interpretative authority with regard to other provisions of ORS 243.672). 9 For that reason, a remand to permit ERB to explain its reasoning is appropriate, unless ERB’s conclusion on motivation is supported by some other independent rationale. | 2 | 2 |
Oregon AFSCME Council 75 v. OJD - Yamhill Countygreen2 sentences2020Cite as 304 Or App 794 (2020) 831 Id. at 889. 2020Cite as 304 Or App 794 (2020) 831 Id. at 889. | 1 | 1 |
American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees, Council 75, Local 2043 v. City of Lebanongreen2 sentences2020See AFSCME Council 75 v. City of Lebanon, 360 Or 809, 817, 825 , 388 P3d 1028 (2017) (PECBA is patterned after the NLRA in many respects; fed- eral cases interpreting NLRA can provide guidance in interpreting parallel provisions of PECBA). 2020See AFSCME Council 75 v. City of Lebanon, 360 Or 809, 817, 825 , 388 P3d 1028 (2017) (PECBA is patterned after the NLRA in many respects; fed- eral cases interpreting NLRA can provide guidance in interpreting parallel provisions of PECBA). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Service Employees Int'l Union Local 503 v. U of O
green
2 sentences2023Regarding the third Colton factor—the factor con- cerning confidentiality—we explained that ERB’s analysis was flawed, because it “relied on improper circular rea- soning to conclude that [the University] did not establish a legitimate and substantial confidentiality interest in the redacted information, which in turn led ERB to an errone- ous ultimate conclusion that SEIU’s need for the unredacted report outweighed [the University’s] (nonexistent) confiden- tiality interest.” Id. at 384 . 2023Regarding the third Colton factor—the factor con- cerning confidentiality—we explained that ERB’s analysis was flawed, because it “relied on improper circular rea- soning to conclude that [the University] did not establish a legitimate and substantial confidentiality interest in the redacted information, which in turn led ERB to an errone- ous ultimate conclusion that SEIU’s need for the unredacted report outweighed [the University’s] (nonexistent) confiden- tiality interest.” Id. at 384 . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Service Employees Int'l Union Local 503 v. U of O
neutral
2 sentences2023We remanded to ERB, directing ERB, on remand, to “assess the third Colton factor in its own right—including determining whether [the University] established a legitimate and substantial confidentiality Cite as 327 Or App 149 (2023) 159 interest in the redacted information—without reference to [an] ultimate conclusion that the totality of the circum- stances weighs in favor of disclosure under PECBA.” Id. at 385 (emphasis in original). 2023We remanded to ERB, directing ERB, on remand, to “assess the third Colton factor in its own right—including determining whether [the University] established a legitimate and substantial confidentiality Cite as 327 Or App 149 (2023) 159 interest in the redacted information—without reference to [an] ultimate conclusion that the totality of the circum- stances weighs in favor of disclosure under PECBA.” Id. at 385 (emphasis in original). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Vaughn v. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences2000Id. [14] ERB's analysis in that and similar cases suggests at least a possible analysis for cases of this kind: whether the employer's concern is sufficiently integral to or inherent in the exercise of the protected activity that basing an employment decision on that concern is equivalent to basing it on the protected activity itself. 2000Id. 14 ERB’s analysis in that and similar cases suggests at least a possible analysis for cases of this kind: whether the employer’s concern is sufficiently integral to or inherent in the exercise of the protected activity that basing an employment decision on that concern is equivalent to basing it on the protected activity itself. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. State
green
1 sentence2013We return first to the text of ORS 243.672(1)(e), set out infra, 353 Or at 176 , and observe that it does not specif- ically delineate or address defenses to a charge that an em- ployer has committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with respect to a mandatory subject of bargaining. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Willamin a School District 30J v. Willamina Education Ass'n
neutral
2 sentences1984Dist. 30J v. Willamina Ed. Assn., 60 Or App 629 , 655 P2d 189 (1982). 1984Dist. 30J v. Willamina Ed. Assn., 60 Or App 629 , 655 P2d 189 (1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.