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 1980–2010 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Megdal v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examinersgreen2 sentences1990The court concluded that the term must be interpreted before being applied in a disciplinary proceeding, reasoning that “when a licensing statute contains both a broad standard of ‘unprofessional conduct’ that is not fully defined in the statute itself and also authority to make rules for the conduct of the regulated operation, the legislative purpose is to provide for the further specification of the standard by rules, unless a different understanding is shown.” 288 Or at 313 . 1985There, the Supreme Court stated: «* * * [W]hen a licensing statute contains both a broad standard of ‘unprofessional conduct’ that is not fully defined in the statute itself and also authority to make rules for the conduct of the regulated occupation, the legislative purpose is to provide for the further specification of the standard by rules, unless a different understanding is shown. * * *” 288 Or at 313-14 . | 1 | 6 |
Arnold v. Board of Accountancygreen2 sentences1981The court rejected the first two possibilities in the case before it, and concluded that the regulating board was obligated to issue prior rules as standards before finding the behavior under discussion in that case to be "unprofessional conduct.” The court reasoned as follows: "Rather, we infer from statutes such as those cited above that when a licensing statute contains both a broad standard of 'unprofessional conduct’ that is not fully defined in the statute itself and also authority to make rules for the conduct of the regulated occupation, the legislative purpose is to provide for the fu 1981The court rejected the first two possibilities in the case before it, and concluded that the regulating board was obligated to issue prior rules as standards before finding the behavior under discussion in that case to be "unprofessional conduct.” The court reasoned as follows: "Rather, we infer from statutes such as those cited above that when a licensing statute contains both a broad standard of 'unprofessional conduct’ that is not fully defined in the statute itself and also authority to make rules for the conduct of the regulated occupation, the legislative purpose is to provide for the fu | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trebesch v. Employment Division
green
1 sentence2010In that context, the court in Megdal held that “when a licensing statute contains both a broad standard of ‘unprofessional conduct’ that is not fully defined in the statute itself and also authority to make rules for the conduct of *502 the regulated occupation, the legislative purpose is to provide for the further specification of the standard by rules, unless a different understanding is shown.” Id. at 313-14 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Spray v. Board of Medical Examiners
green
2 sentences1990(Emphasis supplied.) We answered petitioner’s argument in Spray v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 50 Or App 311 , 624 P2d 125 , modified 51 Or App 773 , 627 P2d 25 , rev den 291 Or 117 (1981), as to the Board’s holding that petitioner’s failure to maintain records impaired his ability safely and skillfully to practice medicine. 1990(Emphasis supplied.) We answered petitioner’s argument in Spray v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 50 Or App 311 , 624 P2d 125 , modified 51 Or App 773 , 627 P2d 25 , rev den 291 Or 117 (1981), as to the Board’s holding that petitioner’s failure to maintain records impaired his ability safely and skillfully to practice medicine. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Spray v. Board of Medical Examiners
green
2 sentences1990(Emphasis supplied.) We answered petitioner’s argument in Spray v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 50 Or App 311 , 624 P2d 125 , modified 51 Or App 773 , 627 P2d 25 , rev den 291 Or 117 (1981), as to the Board’s holding that petitioner’s failure to maintain records impaired his ability safely and skillfully to practice medicine. 1990(Emphasis supplied.) We answered petitioner’s argument in Spray v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 50 Or App 311 , 624 P2d 125 , modified 51 Or App 773 , 627 P2d 25 , rev den 291 Or 117 (1981), as to the Board’s holding that petitioner’s failure to maintain records impaired his ability safely and skillfully to practice medicine. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.