7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Minihan v. Stiglichgreen2 sentences2022Compare Minihan v. Stiglich, 258 Or App 839, 855 , 311 P3d 922 (2013) (stating court must consider “fairness under all the circumstances” per Century Home even if Nelson elements satisfied) with In re Tolley, 3:20-AP-03112-DWH, 2021 WL 6067046 at *4 (BAP 9th Cir Dec 21, 2021) (stating Oregon courts consider fairness inquiry under Century Home identical with third Nelson test). 2022Compare Minihan v. Stiglich, 258 Or App 839, 855 , 311 P3d 922 (2013) (stating court must consider “fairness under all the circumstances” per Century Home even if Nelson elements satisfied) with In re Tolley, 3:20-AP-03112-DWH, 2021 WL 6067046 at *4 (BAP 9th Cir Dec 21, 2021) (stating Oregon courts consider fairness inquiry under Century Home identical with third Nelson test). | 1 | 1 |
Berg ex rel. Estate v. Bentongreen2 sentences2021See Berg v. Benton, 297 Or App 323, 327-28 , 443 P3d 714 (2019) (discussing burdens associated with Nelson’s issue-preclusion analysis). 2021See Berg v. Benton, 297 Or App 323, 327-28 , 443 P3d 714 (2019) (discussing burdens associated with Nelson’s issue-preclusion analysis). | 1 | 1 |
Barackman v. Andersongreen2 sentences2019See Barackman v. Anderson, 214 Or App 660, 667 , 167 P3d 994 (2007), rev den, 344 Or 401 (2008) (the party seeking pre- clusive effect must make a prima facie case on the first, sec- ond, and fourth Nelson factors; then the burden shifts to the 592 Bishop v. KC Development Group, LLC party against whom preclusion is asserted for the third and fifth factors). 2019See Barackman v. Anderson, 214 Or App 660, 667 , 167 P3d 994 (2007), rev den, 344 Or 401 (2008) (the party seeking pre- clusive effect must make a prima facie case on the first, sec- ond, and fourth Nelson factors; then the burden shifts to the 592 Bishop v. KC Development Group, LLC party against whom preclusion is asserted for the third and fifth factors). | 1 | 1 |
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.green1 sentence2002See 530 US at 140-41 . 12 A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case, as the Court has used that term in disparate treatment cases, by showing: “(i) [T]hat he belongs to a racial [or other protected] minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv) that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant’s qualifications.” McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 US 792, 802 , 93 S Ct 1817 , 36 L Ed 2d 6 | 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. Gray
green
2 sentences2015By way of informative distinction, it is useful to contrast the circumstances in this case — specifically, the nature of the evidence and of the defense — with those in Gray , where our exercise of Ailes discretion rested largely on our conclusion that the absence of a Nelson instruction was not harmless. 261 Or App at 131-32 . 2015By way of informative distinction, it is useful to contrast the circumstances in this case — specifically, the nature of the evidence and of the defense — with those in Gray , where our exercise of Ailes discretion rested largely on our conclusion that the absence of a Nelson instruction was not harmless. 261 Or App at 131-32 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
green
2 sentences2002See 530 US at 140-41 . 12 A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case, as the Court has used that term in disparate treatment cases, by showing: “(i) [T]hat he belongs to a racial [or other protected] minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv) that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant’s qualifications.” McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 US 792, 802 , 93 S Ct 1817 , 36 L Ed 2d 6 2002See 530 US at 140-41 . 12 A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case, as the Court has used that term in disparate treatment cases, by showing: “(i) [T]hat he belongs to a racial [or other protected] minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv) that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant’s qualifications.” McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 US 792, 802 , 93 S Ct 1817 , 36 L Ed 2d 6 | 1 | 2002–2002 |
In re the Marriage of Gay
green
2 sentences1997In Gay and Gay, 108 Or App 121 , 814 P2d 543 (1991), for example, we held that: Id. at 125 (emphasis in original). 1997In Gay and Gay, 108 Or App 121 , 814 P2d 543 (1991), for example, we held that: Id. at 125 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Peterson v. Eugene F. Burrill Lumber
green
2 sentences1985Peterson v. Eugene F. Burrill Lumber, 294 Or 537 , 660 P2d 1058 (1983). 1985Peterson v. Eugene F. Burrill Lumber, 294 Or 537 , 660 P2d 1058 (1983). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.