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 1979–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Perez v. Bay Area Hospital
green
2 sentences2014Defendants argue that the notice requirement is intended to ensure that a public defendant is promptly made aware of potential claims so that it can “‘investigate the claim while the evidence is still fresh’” and “‘speedily *** correct the defect, if any, out of which the claim allegedly arose.’” (Quoting Perez, 315 Or at 482 .) According to defendants, an extension of the time in which public defendants must receive that notice — from 180 days to 240 days once the additional 60 days for service are added — would frustrate that purpose. 2012In addition to the specificity of the OTCA, the purpose of the notice requirement, recognized in Perez, 315 Or at 482 , supports application of the relatively short 270-day notice period. | 2 | 2012–2014 |
Sachdev v. Or. Med. Bd.
green
2 sentences2026Villanueva v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 175 Or App 345, 356 , 27 P3d 1100 (2002); Sachdev v. Oregon Medical Board, 292 Or App 778, 785 , 426 P3d 118 (2018). 2026Villanueva v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 175 Or App 345, 356 , 27 P3d 1100 (2002); Sachdev v. Oregon Medical Board, 292 Or App 778, 785 , 426 P3d 118 (2018). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Villanueva v. Board of Psychologist Examiners
green
2 sentences2026Villanueva v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 175 Or App 345, 356 , 27 P3d 1100 (2002); Sachdev v. Oregon Medical Board, 292 Or App 778, 785 , 426 P3d 118 (2018). 2026Villanueva v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 175 Or App 345, 356 , 27 P3d 1100 (2002); Sachdev v. Oregon Medical Board, 292 Or App 778, 785 , 426 P3d 118 (2018). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Colvin v. Industrial Indemnity
green
2 sentences2005In Colvin v. Industrial Indemnity, 301 Or. 743, 747 , 725 P.2d 356 (1986), for example, the Supreme Court explained that the purpose of the notice requirement is to "facilitate[] prompt investigation and diagnosis of the injury." Likewise, in Vsetecka , the court characterized the purpose of the notice provisions of ORS 656.265 as ensuring "prompt notice so that an employer can conduct a timely investigation into the nature and cause of a worker's injury." 337 Or. at 510 , 98 P.3d 1116 . 2005In Colvin v. Industrial Indemnity, 301 Or. 743, 747 , 725 P.2d 356 (1986), for example, the Supreme Court explained that the purpose of the notice requirement is to "facilitate[] prompt investigation and diagnosis of the injury." Likewise, in Vsetecka , the court characterized the purpose of the notice provisions of ORS 656.265 as ensuring "prompt notice so that an employer can conduct a timely investigation into the nature and cause of a worker's injury." 337 Or. at 510 , 98 P.3d 1116 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Vsetecka v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005In Colvin v. Industrial Indemnity, 301 Or. 743, 747 , 725 P.2d 356 (1986), for example, the Supreme Court explained that the purpose of the notice requirement is to "facilitate[] prompt investigation and diagnosis of the injury." Likewise, in Vsetecka , the court characterized the purpose of the notice provisions of ORS 656.265 as ensuring "prompt notice so that an employer can conduct a timely investigation into the nature and cause of a worker's injury." 337 Or. at 510 , 98 P.3d 1116 . 2005In Colvin v. Industrial Indemnity, 301 Or. 743, 747 , 725 P.2d 356 (1986), for example, the Supreme Court explained that the purpose of the notice requirement is to "facilitate[] prompt investigation and diagnosis of the injury." Likewise, in Vsetecka , the court characterized the purpose of the notice provisions of ORS 656.265 as ensuring "prompt notice so that an employer can conduct a timely investigation into the nature and cause of a worker's injury." 337 Or. at 510 , 98 P.3d 1116 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Robinson v. Shipley
green
2 sentences2000Robinson v. Shipley, 64 Or App 794, 797 , 669 P2d 1169 , rev den 296 Or 138 (1983). 2000Robinson v. Shipley, 64 Or App 794, 797 , 669 P2d 1169 , rev den 296 Or 138 (1983). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Lusch v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
green
2 sentences1993Lusch v. Aetna Cas. and Surety Co., 272 Or 593, 599 , 538 P2d 902 (1975). 1993Lusch v. Aetna Cas. and Surety Co., 272 Or 593, 599 , 538 P2d 902 (1975). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Urban Renewal Agency v. Lackey
green
2 sentences1979Urban Renewal Agency v. Lackey, 275 Or 35 , 549 P2d 657 (1976). 1979Urban Renewal Agency v. Lackey, 275 Or 35 , 549 P2d 657 (1976). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.