7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2025Second, we “consider the probative value of * * * the evidence to determine whether its relevance relies on char- acter reasoning expressly or by implication.” Martinez I, 335 Or App at 654 . 2025Second, we “consider the probative value of * * * the evidence to determine whether its relevance relies on char- acter reasoning expressly or by implication.” Martinez I, 335 Or App at 654 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Shotthafer
neutral
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Shilo Inn Portland/205, LLC v. Multnomah County
green
2 sentences2020Shilo Inn v. Multnomah County, 333 Or 101, 116 , 36 P 3d 954 (2001). 2020Shilo Inn v. Multnomah County, 333 Or 101, 116 , 36 P 3d 954 (2001). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Gemstone Builders, Inc. v. Stutz
neutral
1 sentence2014We then observed that the next step in the analysis would be consideration of any extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent: “Because the disputed provisions, viewed in light of the contract as a whole, are ambiguous, we would consider extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent, but given that the record contains no such evidence, we turn to appropriate maxims of construction.” Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Wheeler
green
1 sentence2010Reiterating its previous statement in Wheeler , the court observed that “the use of the word ‘proportioned’ strongly implies ‘that a greater or more severe penalty should be imposed for a greater or more severe offense, and conversely, that a less severe penalty should be imposed for a less severe offense.’ ” 347 Or at 62 (quoting Wheeler, 343 Or at 656 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Rodriguez/Buck
green
1 sentence2010Reiterating its previous statement in Wheeler , the court observed that “the use of the word ‘proportioned’ strongly implies ‘that a greater or more severe penalty should be imposed for a greater or more severe offense, and conversely, that a less severe penalty should be imposed for a less severe offense.’ ” 347 Or at 62 (quoting Wheeler, 343 Or at 656 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Blocker
green
2 sentences1983A legislature can make a law as ‘broad’ and inclusive as it chooses unless it reaches into constitutionally protected ground. * * *” State v. Blocker, 291 Or 255, 261 , 630 P2d 824 (1981). 1983A legislature can make a law as ‘broad’ and inclusive as it chooses unless it reaches into constitutionally protected ground. * * *” State v. Blocker, 291 Or 255, 261 , 630 P2d 824 (1981). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.