7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ramex, Inc. v. Northwest Basic Industriesgreen2 sentences2001See 176 Or.App. at 88 , 29 P.3d at 1218 (Edmonds, P. J., concurring). 2001See 176 Or.App. at 88 , 29 P.3d at 1218 (Edmonds, P. J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
Winn v. Gilroygreen2 sentences1991The court explained that *697 “[cjohabitation and other circumstances assumed to accompany the marital relationship may call for different standards of care than that required among strangers, and may require that any action for negligent personal injury be subject to such defenses as privilege, but there is nothing in the relationship that calls for absolute immunity.” (Emphasis supplied.) 306 Or at 376; see also Winn v. Gilroy, 296 Or 718, 728-29 , 681 P2d 776 (1984). 1991The court explained that *697 “[cjohabitation and other circumstances assumed to accompany the marital relationship may call for different standards of care than that required among strangers, and may require that any action for negligent personal injury be subject to such defenses as privilege, but there is nothing in the relationship that calls for absolute immunity.” (Emphasis supplied.) 306 Or at 376; see also Winn v. Gilroy, 296 Or 718, 728-29 , 681 P2d 776 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Tony Lee Thompson
green
1 sentence2007In U.S. v. Thompson, 421 F3d 278 (4th Cir 2005), cert den, 547 US 1005 , 126 S Ct 1463 , 164 L Ed 2d 250 (2006), the defendant pleaded guilty and did not object to a presentence report indicating that he had 20 prior convictions. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Martin
green
2 sentences2002Following Luckey and its codification in ORS 164.035, we addressed the limits of the defense in State v. Martin, 15 Or App 498 , 516 P2d 753 (1973). 2002Following Luckey and its codification in ORS 164.035, we addressed the limits of the defense in State v. Martin, 15 Or App 498 , 516 P2d 753 (1973). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Umpqua Aquaculture, Inc. v. Ron's Welding & Fabricators, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2000Our decision in Umpqua Aquaculture, Inc. v. Ron’s Welding, 111 Or App 220, 225 , 826 P2d 31 (1992), illustrates the limits of the doctrine in circumstances similar to those present here. 2000Our decision in Umpqua Aquaculture, Inc. v. Ron’s Welding, 111 Or App 220, 225 , 826 P2d 31 (1992), illustrates the limits of the doctrine in circumstances similar to those present here. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Goose Hollow Foothills League v. City of Portland
green
2 sentences1995We further conclude that the county’s interpretation of “feedlot” is not clearly wrong, Goose Hollow Foothills League v. City of Portland, 117 Or App 211, 217 , 843 P2d 992 (1992), and is not reversible. 1995We further conclude that the county’s interpretation of “feedlot” is not clearly wrong, Goose Hollow Foothills League v. City of Portland, 117 Or App 211, 217 , 843 P2d 992 (1992), and is not reversible. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Oliver v. Burg
green
2 sentences1960The rule then is that the burden shifts to the plaintiffs to show that the assessment work on Snow Flake No. 1 benefited Snow Flake No. 2. “ # * Where a party shows that no work was performed by his adversary within the limits of a claim he makes out a prima facie ease, and thereafter, should such adversary depend upon labor done outside the claim, the burden is cast upon him of proving the performance of such labor and proving that its reasonable tendency is to benefit the claim. 2 Lindley on Mines (3d Ed.), see. 643.’ ” Oliver v. Burg, 154 Or 1, 17 , 58 P2d 245 . 1960The rule then is that the burden shifts to the plaintiffs to show that the assessment work on Snow Flake No. 1 benefited Snow Flake No. 2. “ # * Where a party shows that no work was performed by his adversary within the limits of a claim he makes out a prima facie ease, and thereafter, should such adversary depend upon labor done outside the claim, the burden is cast upon him of proving the performance of such labor and proving that its reasonable tendency is to benefit the claim. 2 Lindley on Mines (3d Ed.), see. 643.’ ” Oliver v. Burg, 154 Or 1, 17 , 58 P2d 245 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
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.