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 1996–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Garrison v. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2017See also Garrison v. Dept. of Rev., 345 Or 544, 549 , 200 P3d 126 (2008) (“[A] rule created within a statutory scheme cannot amend, alter, enlarge upon, or limit statutory wording so that it has the effect of undermining the legislative intent.”); Miller v. Employment Division, 290 Or 285, 288 , 620 P2d 1377 (1980) (framing the rule validity issue as whether the rule “conflicts with the clear, unambiguous words of [the statute]”); Oregon Firearms v. Board of Higher Education, 245 Or App 713, 723 , 264 P3d 160 (2011) (agency rule prohibiting possessing firearms on institutional property preempt 2017See also Garrison v. Dept. of Rev., 345 Or 544, 549 , 200 P3d 126 (2008) (“[A] rule created within a statutory scheme cannot amend, alter, enlarge upon, or limit statutory wording so that it has the effect of undermining the legislative intent.”); Miller v. Employment Division, 290 Or 285, 288 , 620 P2d 1377 (1980) (framing the rule validity issue as whether the rule “conflicts with the clear, unambiguous words of [the statute]”); Oregon Firearms v. Board of Higher Education, 245 Or App 713, 723 , 264 P3d 160 (2011) (agency rule prohibiting possessing firearms on institutional property preempt | 1 | 1 |
Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Department of Human Resourcesgreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Dept. of Human Res., 297 Or 562, 573 , 687 P2d 785 (1984) (recognizing that basis for challenging administrative rule under ORS 183.400(4)(b)). *96 Managed Healthcare relies on several statutory sources as support for its argument that DCBS may not prevent MCOs from declining to authorize treatment by a worker’s nonmember PCP based on that PCP’s past practices. 2005See, e.g., Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Dept. of Human Res., 297 Or 562, 573 , 687 P2d 785 (1984) (recognizing that basis for challenging administrative rule under ORS 183.400(4)(b)). *96 Managed Healthcare relies on several statutory sources as support for its argument that DCBS may not prevent MCOs from declining to authorize treatment by a worker’s nonmember PCP based on that PCP’s past practices. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Oliver
green
2 sentences2015Even equity does not require saintliness.” North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Oliver, 286 Or 639, 651 , 596 P2d 931 (1979) (noting that court has applied the doctrine when a plaintiffs conduct constituted a crime, fraud, or bad faith). 2015Even equity does not require saintliness.” North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Oliver, 286 Or 639, 651 , 596 P2d 931 (1979) (noting that court has applied the doctrine when a plaintiffs conduct constituted a crime, fraud, or bad faith). | 4 | 1996–2015 |
Managed Healthcare Northwest, Inc. v. Department of Consumer & Business Services
neutral
2 sentences2017Similarly, in Managed Healthcare Northwest v. DCBS, 338 Or 92, 95 , 106 P3d 624 (2005), the court framed the rule validity issue as whether “an otherwise valid rule * * * conflicts with clearly stated statutory policy.” In order to determine the “clearly stated statutory policy,” the court “examine [d] the applicable statutory wording in its context to determine the legislature’s intent.” Id. at 96 . 2017Similarly, in Managed Healthcare Northwest v. DCBS, 338 Or 92, 95 , 106 P3d 624 (2005), the court framed the rule validity issue as whether “an otherwise valid rule * * * conflicts with clearly stated statutory policy.” In order to determine the “clearly stated statutory policy,” the court “examine [d] the applicable statutory wording in its context to determine the legislature’s intent.” Id. at 96 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Miller v. Employment Division
green
2 sentences2017See also Garrison v. Dept. of Rev., 345 Or 544, 549 , 200 P3d 126 (2008) (“[A] rule created within a statutory scheme cannot amend, alter, enlarge upon, or limit statutory wording so that it has the effect of undermining the legislative intent.”); Miller v. Employment Division, 290 Or 285, 288 , 620 P2d 1377 (1980) (framing the rule validity issue as whether the rule “conflicts with the clear, unambiguous words of [the statute]”); Oregon Firearms v. Board of Higher Education, 245 Or App 713, 723 , 264 P3d 160 (2011) (agency rule prohibiting possessing firearms on institutional property preempt 2017See also Garrison v. Dept. of Rev., 345 Or 544, 549 , 200 P3d 126 (2008) (“[A] rule created within a statutory scheme cannot amend, alter, enlarge upon, or limit statutory wording so that it has the effect of undermining the legislative intent.”); Miller v. Employment Division, 290 Or 285, 288 , 620 P2d 1377 (1980) (framing the rule validity issue as whether the rule “conflicts with the clear, unambiguous words of [the statute]”); Oregon Firearms v. Board of Higher Education, 245 Or App 713, 723 , 264 P3d 160 (2011) (agency rule prohibiting possessing firearms on institutional property preempt | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation v. Board of Higher Education
green
2 sentences2017See also Garrison v. Dept. of Rev., 345 Or 544, 549 , 200 P3d 126 (2008) (“[A] rule created within a statutory scheme cannot amend, alter, enlarge upon, or limit statutory wording so that it has the effect of undermining the legislative intent.”); Miller v. Employment Division, 290 Or 285, 288 , 620 P2d 1377 (1980) (framing the rule validity issue as whether the rule “conflicts with the clear, unambiguous words of [the statute]”); Oregon Firearms v. Board of Higher Education, 245 Or App 713, 723 , 264 P3d 160 (2011) (agency rule prohibiting possessing firearms on institutional property preempt 2017See also Garrison v. Dept. of Rev., 345 Or 544, 549 , 200 P3d 126 (2008) (“[A] rule created within a statutory scheme cannot amend, alter, enlarge upon, or limit statutory wording so that it has the effect of undermining the legislative intent.”); Miller v. Employment Division, 290 Or 285, 288 , 620 P2d 1377 (1980) (framing the rule validity issue as whether the rule “conflicts with the clear, unambiguous words of [the statute]”); Oregon Firearms v. Board of Higher Education, 245 Or App 713, 723 , 264 P3d 160 (2011) (agency rule prohibiting possessing firearms on institutional property preempt | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Burgdorf v. Weston
green
2 sentences2015The doctrine of “unclean hands” bars a party from recovery on an otherwise valid claim if that party “has engaged in misconduct in connection with the matter for which he or she seeks relief.” Burgdorf v. Weston, 259 Or App 755, 764 , 316 P3d 303 (2013), rev den, 355 Or 380 (2014). 10 Among other things, for the doctrine to apply, “the misconduct must be serious enough to justify a court’s denying relief on an otherwise valid claim. 2015The doctrine of “unclean hands” bars a party from recovery on an otherwise valid claim if that party “has engaged in misconduct in connection with the matter for which he or she seeks relief.” Burgdorf v. Weston, 259 Or App 755, 764 , 316 P3d 303 (2013), rev den, 355 Or 380 (2014). 10 Among other things, for the doctrine to apply, “the misconduct must be serious enough to justify a court’s denying relief on an otherwise valid claim. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.