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 3 courts 2000–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY v. Department of Revenue
neutral
2 sentences2007As in Sherwin-Williams [ Co. v. Dept. of Revenue , 14 OTR 384 (1998), aff'd 329 Or 599 , 996 P2d 500 (2000)], the resolution must be by amendment of the statute or administrative rule." ATT , 15 OTR at 206 . 2007As in Sherwin-Williams [ Co. v. Dept. of Revenue , 14 OTR 384 (1998), aff'd 329 Or 599 , 996 P2d 500 (2000)], the resolution must be by amendment of the statute or administrative rule." ATT , 15 OTR at 206 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
At&T v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2007As in Sherwin-Williams [ Co. v. Dept. of Revenue , 14 OTR 384 (1998), aff'd 329 Or 599 , 996 P2d 500 (2000)], the resolution must be by amendment of the statute or administrative rule." ATT , 15 OTR at 206 . 2007As in Sherwin-Williams [Co. v. Dept. of Rev. , 14 OTR 384 (1998), aff'd , 329 Or 599 , 996 P2d 500 (2000)], the resolution must be by amendment of the statute or administrative rule." ATT , 15 OTR at 206 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
The Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Department of Rev.
green
2 sentences2007As in Sherwin-Williams [ Co. v. Dept. of Revenue , 14 OTR 384 (1998), aff'd 329 Or 599 , 996 P2d 500 (2000)], the resolution must be by amendment of the statute or administrative rule." ATT , 15 OTR at 206 . 2007As in Sherwin-Williams [Co. v. Dept. of Rev. , 14 OTR 384 (1998), aff'd , 329 Or 599 , 996 P2d 500 (2000)], the resolution must be by amendment of the statute or administrative rule." ATT , 15 OTR at 206 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union
green
1 sentence2023Id. at 237-38 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Georgetown Realty, Inc. v. Home Insurance
green
1 sentence2022Id. at 110-11 . 238 Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union In other cases, such an independent standard of care may be expressed in a statute or administrative rule. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Hardges
green
1 sentence2019Hardges , 294 Or. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011Abraham, 230 Or App at 569 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Jones v. Emerald Pacific Homes, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011The Court of Appeals, however, did agree with plaintiffs that a statute or administrative rule could establish a standard of care independent of the contract and that plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants had failed to comply with the building code, thereby causing damage to plaintiffs’ property, were sufficient to state a negligence claim under that theory. 5 Id. at 573 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Fisher Broadcasting, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
red
1 sentence2000However, that rule applies only if the business income from intangible property “cannot readily be attributed to any particular income producing activity of the taxpayer.” OAR 150-314.665-(3)(2) defines income-producing activity as “transactions and activity directly engaged in by the taxpayer in the regular course of its trade or business for the ultimate purpose of obtaining gains or profit.” The rule indicates that such activity includes but it is not limited to “the sale, licensing, or other use of intangible personal property.” Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.