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 2001–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc.red2 sentences2013In Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or 62, 72 , 987 P2d 463 (1999), for instance, this court sweepingly declared of the right to a jury trial guaranteed in Article I, section 17, that “whatever the right to ‘Trial by Jury’ meant in 1857, it means precisely the same thing today.” In Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or 83, 118 , 23 P3d 333 (2001), to pick another example, the court announced that the purpose of the remedy clause of Article I, section 10, “is to protect absolute common-law rights respecting person, property, and reputation, as those rights existed when the Oregon Constit 2013In Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or 62, 72 , 987 P2d 463 (1999), for instance, this court sweepingly declared of the right to a jury trial guaranteed in Article I, section 17, that “whatever the right to ‘Trial by Jury’ meant in 1857, it means precisely the same thing today.” In Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or 83, 118 , 23 P3d 333 (2001), to pick another example, the court announced that the purpose of the remedy clause of Article I, section 10, “is to protect absolute common-law rights respecting person, property, and reputation, as those rights existed when the Oregon Constit | 2 | 6 |
Stewart v. Houkgreen2 sentences2013See also, e.g., id. at 116 (“the purpose of the remedy clause ‘is to save from legislative abolishment those jural rights which had become well established prior to the enactment of our Constitution.’” (quoting Stewart v. Houk et al., 127 Or 589, 591 , 271 P 998 (1928)); id. at 118 (“As we have explained, the history of the remedy clause indicates that its purpose is to protect absolute common-law rights respecting person, property, and reputation as those rights existed when the Oregon Constitution was drafted in 1857.”); id. at 123 (“Article I, section 10, protects rights respecting person, 2013See also, e.g., id. at 116 (“the purpose of the remedy clause ‘is to save from legislative abolishment those jural rights which had become well established prior to the enactment of our Constitution.’” (quoting Stewart v. Houk et al., 127 Or 589, 591 , 271 P 998 (1928)); id. at 118 (“As we have explained, the history of the remedy clause indicates that its purpose is to protect absolute common-law rights respecting person, property, and reputation as those rights existed when the Oregon Constitution was drafted in 1857.”); id. at 123 (“Article I, section 10, protects rights respecting person, | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Delgado
green
2 sentences2013In Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or 62, 72 , 987 P2d 463 (1999), for instance, this court sweepingly declared of the right to a jury trial guaranteed in Article I, section 17, that “whatever the right to ‘Trial by Jury’ meant in 1857, it means precisely the same thing today.” In Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or 83, 118 , 23 P3d 333 (2001), to pick another example, the court announced that the purpose of the remedy clause of Article I, section 10, “is to protect absolute common-law rights respecting person, property, and reputation, as those rights existed when the Oregon Constit 2013In Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or 62, 72 , 987 P2d 463 (1999), for instance, this court sweepingly declared of the right to a jury trial guaranteed in Article I, section 17, that “whatever the right to ‘Trial by Jury’ meant in 1857, it means precisely the same thing today.” In Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or 83, 118 , 23 P3d 333 (2001), to pick another example, the court announced that the purpose of the remedy clause of Article I, section 10, “is to protect absolute common-law rights respecting person, property, and reputation, as those rights existed when the Oregon Constit | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc.
red
2 sentences2013In Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or 62, 72 , 987 P2d 463 (1999), for instance, this court sweepingly declared of the right to a jury trial guaranteed in Article I, section 17, that “whatever the right to ‘Trial by Jury’ meant in 1857, it means precisely the same thing today.” In Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or 83, 118 , 23 P3d 333 (2001), to pick another example, the court announced that the purpose of the remedy clause of Article I, section 10, “is to protect absolute common-law rights respecting person, property, and reputation, as those rights existed when the Oregon Constit 2013In Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or 62, 72 , 987 P2d 463 (1999), for instance, this court sweepingly declared of the right to a jury trial guaranteed in Article I, section 17, that “whatever the right to ‘Trial by Jury’ meant in 1857, it means precisely the same thing today.” In Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or 83, 118 , 23 P3d 333 (2001), to pick another example, the court announced that the purpose of the remedy clause of Article I, section 10, “is to protect absolute common-law rights respecting person, property, and reputation, as those rights existed when the Oregon Constit | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Platt v. Newberg
green
2 sentences2001This court also has stated that the purpose of the remedy clause is to make the common-law maxim that there is no wrong without a remedy “a fixed and permanent rule of law in this state.”Platt v. Newberg et al., 104 Or 148, 153 , 205 P 296 (1922). 2001This court also has stated that the purpose of the remedy clause is to make the common-law maxim that there is no wrong without a remedy “a fixed and permanent rule of law in this state.”Platt v. Newberg et al., 104 Or 148, 153 , 205 P 296 (1922). | 2 | 2001–2013 |
Storm v. McClung
green
1 sentence2007Storm, 334 Or at 222 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Dearmond v. Fenwick
green
1 sentence2001Stewart involved the constitutionality of a 1927 statute, which provided that “ ‘[acceptance of a free ride as a guest in a motor vehicle shall be presumed to be a waiver of said guest of liability for accidental injury caused by [the] owner or driver of such motor vehicle.’ ” Id. at 591 (quoting statute). | 1 | 2001–2001 |