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 1 courts 1999–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Walter v. City and County of Denvergreen2 sentences2005ORS 183.315(5). [2] Citing an intermediate Colorado appellate court decision, petitioner also argues that, "at some point, a delay in receiving a statutorily created benefit can ripen into a procedural due process violation." See Walter v. City and County of Denver, 983 P.2d 88, 91 (Colo.App.1998) (making that general observation). 2005Citing an intermediate Colorado appellate court decision, petitioner also argues that, “at some point, a delay in receiving a statutorily created benefit can ripen into a procedural due process violation.” See Walter v. City and County of Denver, 983 P2d 88, 91 (Colo App 1998) (making that general observation). | 2 | 2 |
Goodson v. Public Employees Retirement Systemgreen2 sentences2014See Goodson v. PERS, 351 Or 173, 176-77 , 264 P3d 148 (2011) (addressing procedural due process claim). 2014See Goodson v. PERS, 351 Or 173, 176-77 , 264 P3d 148 (2011) (addressing procedural due process claim). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2011Affirmed. 1 We reject without discussion petitioner’s additional argument that the board erred in considering a psychological evaluation that petitioner asserts was “irrelevant” to the issues at the hearing. 2 Because, as explained below, this case turns on whether Huddleston was a “witness,” we need not decide whether ORS 183.450(3) could have some application in this context. 3 In Mathews , the court stated that the following three factors are pertinent to the procedural due process inquiry: “First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an err 2010"Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of `liberty' or `property' interests." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). | 3 | 1999–2011 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2010Cf. State v. Barnes, 232 Or.App. 70, 74 , 220 P.3d 1195 (2009) (holding that the defendant could not argue that he was denied procedural due process on the underlying exclusion order when the record established that he did not take advantage of the process available to him); Johnson II, 163 Or.App. at 79-80 , 988 P.2d 913 (rejecting the defendant's procedural due process challenge to the lawfulness of an underlying exclusion notice on its merits). 2010Cf. State v. Barnes, 232 Or.App. 70, 74 , 220 P.3d 1195 (2009) (holding that the defendant could not argue that he was denied procedural due process on the underlying exclusion order when the record established that he did not take advantage of the process available to him); Johnson II, 163 Or.App. at 79-80 , 988 P.2d 913 (rejecting the defendant's procedural due process challenge to the lawfulness of an underlying exclusion notice on its merits). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Barnes
green
2 sentences2010Cf. State v. Barnes, 232 Or.App. 70, 74 , 220 P.3d 1195 (2009) (holding that the defendant could not argue that he was denied procedural due process on the underlying exclusion order when the record established that he did not take advantage of the process available to him); Johnson II, 163 Or.App. at 79-80 , 988 P.2d 913 (rejecting the defendant's procedural due process challenge to the lawfulness of an underlying exclusion notice on its merits). 2010Cf. State v. Barnes, 232 Or.App. 70, 74 , 220 P.3d 1195 (2009) (holding that the defendant could not argue that he was denied procedural due process on the underlying exclusion order when the record established that he did not take advantage of the process available to him); Johnson II, 163 Or.App. at 79-80 , 988 P.2d 913 (rejecting the defendant's procedural due process challenge to the lawfulness of an underlying exclusion notice on its merits). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Paul v. Davis
green
2 sentences1999Also, because of our disposition, we need not separately address City’s remaining assignments of error. *587 We turn to Lincoln’s two cross-assignments of error, only the first of which requires discussion. 19 Lincoln argues that the trial court erred in dismissing its procedural due process claim arising from City’s “improper designation of [Lincoln] as a Dirty Dozen target.” Lincoln argues that “a procedural due process claim is established where one is subject to a designation by the government without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and the designation results in both an injury to r 1999Also, because of our disposition, we need not separately address City’s remaining assignments of error. *587 We turn to Lincoln’s two cross-assignments of error, only the first of which requires discussion. 19 Lincoln argues that the trial court erred in dismissing its procedural due process claim arising from City’s “improper designation of [Lincoln] as a Dirty Dozen target.” Lincoln argues that “a procedural due process claim is established where one is subject to a designation by the government without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and the designation results in both an injury to r | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.