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 1960–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Akinsgreen1 sentence2025It concludes from the enactment history that the legislature intended the hearsay exception to apply only when the child declarant remained a child at the time of trial, and it bolsters that conclusion with statements in the legislative history showing that part of the motivation for the rule was a concern about “the ability of young children to testify in court.” 373 Or at 535 (Duncan, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Akinsgreen1 sentence2025It concludes from the enactment history that the legislature intended the hearsay exception to apply only when the child declarant remained a child at the time of trial, and it bolsters that conclusion with statements in the legislative history showing that part of the motivation for the rule was a concern about “the ability of young children to testify in court.” 373 Or at 505 (Duncan, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Pacific Truck Expressgreen2 sentences1962Oregon Laws 1961, ch 578 (ORS 30.115) provides in part as follows: ③ Melcher v. Adams, 174 Or 75, 82 , 146 P2d 354, 356 (1944); Smith v. Pacific Truck Express, 164 Or 318, 324 , 100 P2d 474, 476 (1940). ④ Where the uncontradicted evidence establishes that defendant is benefited in a substantial way the plaintiff is a passenger and not a guest as a matter of law. 1962Oregon Laws 1961, ch 578 (ORS 30.115) provides in part as follows: ③ Melcher v. Adams, 174 Or 75, 82 , 146 P2d 354, 356 (1944); Smith v. Pacific Truck Express, 164 Or 318, 324 , 100 P2d 474, 476 (1940). ④ Where the uncontradicted evidence establishes that defendant is benefited in a substantial way the plaintiff is a passenger and not a guest as a matter of law. | 1 | 1 |
Melcher v. Adamsgreen2 sentences1962Oregon Laws 1961, ch 578 (ORS 30.115) provides in part as follows: ③ Melcher v. Adams, 174 Or 75, 82 , 146 P2d 354, 356 (1944); Smith v. Pacific Truck Express, 164 Or 318, 324 , 100 P2d 474, 476 (1940). ④ Where the uncontradicted evidence establishes that defendant is benefited in a substantial way the plaintiff is a passenger and not a guest as a matter of law. 1962Oregon Laws 1961, ch 578 (ORS 30.115) provides in part as follows: ③ Melcher v. Adams, 174 Or 75, 82 , 146 P2d 354, 356 (1944); Smith v. Pacific Truck Express, 164 Or 318, 324 , 100 P2d 474, 476 (1940). ④ Where the uncontradicted evidence establishes that defendant is benefited in a substantial way the plaintiff is a passenger and not a guest as a matter of law. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whipple v. Commissioner
green
2 sentences1978The first reason given was to preserve the distinction which, as the legislative history indicated, the statute was intended to draw. 4 Secondly, the significant motivation test would tend to undermine the further distinction drawn in Whipple v. Commissioner, 373 US 193 (1963), between the taxpayer’s role as an employe, a trade or business interest, and his role as an investor, not a trade or business interest. 1971We interpret thus the admonition of the Supreme Court in Whipple v. Commissioner, [ 373 US 193 , 83 S Ct 1168 , 10 L Ed2d 288, 11 AFTR2d 1454 (1963)] page 202: ‘Even if the taxpayer demonstrates an independent trade or business of his own, care must be taken to distinguish bad debt losses arising from his own business and those actually arising from activities peculiar to an investor concerned with, and participating in the conduct of the corporate business.’ ” ( 69-2 USTC ¶ 9704 , at p 85, 942.) The U.S. Tax Court also applied the primary motivation test in Rosati v. Commissioner, 29 CCH Tax | 2 | 1971–1978 |
Johnson v. Kolovos
green
2 sentences1964The principal question is whether there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that plaintiff’s presence in the vehicle conferred a substantial benefit upon the defendant in a business or material sense and that it was a motivating factor for the transportation, thus excluding the operation of OES 30.115. ① In Johnson v. Kolovos, 224 Or 266, 272 , 355 P2d 1115 (1960) we concluded that “the motivation test is confusing and too difficult to apply,” for which reason we rejected that test. 1964The principal question is whether there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that plaintiff’s presence in the vehicle conferred a substantial benefit upon the defendant in a business or material sense and that it was a motivating factor for the transportation, thus excluding the operation of OES 30.115. ① In Johnson v. Kolovos, 224 Or 266, 272 , 355 P2d 1115 (1960) we concluded that “the motivation test is confusing and too difficult to apply,” for which reason we rejected that test. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Brandis v. Goldanski
green
1 sentence1960In Brandis v. Goldanski, supra, the benefit was required to be “at least a motivating influence.” (Emphasis supplied.) The scope of the motivation rule in California is *272 now obscure, and lower courts are in a state of disagreement as to the exact wording to be used. 43 Cal L Rev 853 (1955). | 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.