7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1907–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegnagreen2 sentences2007The crux of the complaint is that the contract as a whole (including its arbitration provision) is rendered invalid by the usurious finance charge.” Id. at 444 (citation and footnote omitted). 2007The crux of the complaint is that the contract as a whole (including its arbitration provision) is rendered invalid by the usurious finance charge.” 546 US at 444 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Deras v. Myersgreen2 sentences1984See Deras v. Myers, 272 Or 47 , 535 P2d 541 (1975). 1984See Deras v. Myers, 272 Or 47 , 535 P2d 541 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC
green
2 sentences2025Respondents’ brief is due 28 days from the date of this opinion. 302 Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC Cite as 345 Or App 301 (2025) 303 LAGESEN, C. 2025Respondents’ brief is due 28 days from the date of this opinion. 302 Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC Cite as 345 Or App 301 (2025) 303 LAGESEN, C. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
William W. Bierce, Ltd. v. Hutchins
green
2 sentences1951The growers seek to avoid the effect of this by arguing, as they do in their petition for rehearing, as follows : “* * * the respondents do not claim a change or modification of the terms of the contract, made by mutual assent or otherwise, but simply that the buyer was required by the terms of the contract, in its sole determination and judgment, to elect whether to make or withhold the picking advance, and that by making the advance under all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made, and at the time the advance was made, it made a choice by its overt acts a 1951The growers seek to avoid the effect of this by arguing, as they do in their petition for rehearing, as follows : “* * * the respondents do not claim a change or modification of the terms of the contract, made by mutual assent or otherwise, but simply that the buyer was required by the terms of the contract, in its sole determination and judgment, to elect whether to make or withhold the picking advance, and that by making the advance under all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made, and at the time the advance was made, it made a choice by its overt acts a | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Johnson v. Feskens
green
2 sentences1951The growers seek to avoid the effect of this by arguing, as they do in their petition for rehearing, as follows : “* * * the respondents do not claim a change or modification of the terms of the contract, made by mutual assent or otherwise, but simply that the buyer was required by the terms of the contract, in its sole determination and judgment, to elect whether to make or withhold the picking advance, and that by making the advance under all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made, and at the time the advance was made, it made a choice by its overt acts a 1951The growers seek to avoid the effect of this by arguing, as they do in their petition for rehearing, as follows : “* * * the respondents do not claim a change or modification of the terms of the contract, made by mutual assent or otherwise, but simply that the buyer was required by the terms of the contract, in its sole determination and judgment, to elect whether to make or withhold the picking advance, and that by making the advance under all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made, and at the time the advance was made, it made a choice by its overt acts a | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Seater v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1950Co., 176 Or. 542 , 156 P. 2d 386 , 159 P. 2d 826 . 1950Co., 176 Or. 542 , 156 P. 2d 386 , 159 P. 2d 826 . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Ostrom v. Greene
green
1 sentence1907The difficulty in applying that proposition is that this body was not a voluntary association with . no rules, constitution or by laws for its government, as was the case in Ostrom v. Greene ( 20 Misc. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
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.