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 1990–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ross v. Cuthbertgreen2 sentences2000See Ross v. Cuthbert, 239 Or 429, 436 , 397 P2d 529 (1964); Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 144 Or App 52, 81 , 925 P2d 107 (1996), aff'd 329 Or 62 , 987 P2d 463 , mod on recons 329 Or 369 , 987 P2d 476 (1999). 9 Our determination that ODOT could not be liable for contribution because Mitchell failed to serve a statutory notice of claim on ODOT is a holding on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion. 2000See Ross v. Cuthbert, 239 Or 429, 436 , 397 P2d 529 (1964); Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 144 Or App 52, 81 , 925 P2d 107 (1996), aff'd 329 Or 62 , 987 P2d 463 , mod on recons 329 Or 369 , 987 P2d 476 (1999). 9 Our determination that ODOT could not be liable for contribution because Mitchell failed to serve a statutory notice of claim on ODOT is a holding on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion. | 1 | 1 |
Drews v. EBI Companiesgreen2 sentences2000See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 19 comment b (1982) (“Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party * * ®, operates as an adjudication on the merits.”); see generally Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or 134, 140-41 , 795 P2d 531 (1990) (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 19 with approval). 10 Noralee’s reliance on Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 20(2) (1982) is unavailing. 2000See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 19 comment b (1982) (“Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party * * ®, operates as an adjudication on the merits.”); see generally Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or 134, 140-41 , 795 P2d 531 (1990) (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 19 with approval). 10 Noralee’s reliance on Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 20(2) (1982) is unavailing. | 1 | 1 |
Wicks-Snodgrass v. City of Reedsportgreen2 sentences1998In so doing, we also rejected the county’s unspoken premise that, “although the statutory notice and hearing requirements are mandatory, the violation of the statute makes itself impervious to review, because the failure to provide notice and a hearing substantially defeats the ability to achieve standing to challenge the failure to provide them.” We also said in Flowers that “counties must comply with the requirements of ORS 215.416 and related statutes and [we] have consistently rejected arguments that counties may modify or deviate from those requirements.” Id. at 388; see Wicks-Snodgrass v 1998In so doing, we also rejected the county’s unspoken premise that, “although the statutory notice and hearing requirements are mandatory, the violation of the statute makes itself impervious to review, because the failure to provide notice and a hearing substantially defeats the ability to achieve standing to challenge the failure to provide them.” We also said in Flowers that “counties must comply with the requirements of ORS 215.416 and related statutes and [we] have consistently rejected arguments that counties may modify or deviate from those requirements.” Id. at 388; see Wicks-Snodgrass v | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sizemore v. Myers
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 73-74 . 2017Id. at 73-74 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Scarth v. Scarth
green
2 sentences2013Id. 9 This court’s decision in Scarth v. Scarth, 211 Or 121 , 315 P2d 141 (1957), illustrates a circumstance in which the failure to comply with a statutory notice requirement did result in a due process violation and a void judgment. 2013Id. 9 This court’s decision in Scarth v. Scarth, 211 Or 121 , 315 P2d 141 (1957), illustrates a circumstance in which the failure to comply with a statutory notice requirement did result in a due process violation and a void judgment. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Hood River County v. Dabney
green
1 sentence2013Id. 9 This court’s decision in Scarth v. Scarth, 211 Or 121 , 315 P2d 141 (1957), illustrates a circumstance in which the failure to comply with a statutory notice requirement did result in a due process violation and a void judgment. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Hays v. Pigg
green
2 sentences2002Defendant also contends that the Supreme Court created an exception to the statutory notice requirement in Hays v. Pigg, 267 Or 143, 148 , 515 P2d 924 (1973). 2002Defendant also contends that the Supreme Court created an exception to the statutory notice requirement in Hays v. Pigg, 267 Or 143, 148 , 515 P2d 924 (1973). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000See Ross v. Cuthbert, 239 Or 429, 436 , 397 P2d 529 (1964); Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 144 Or App 52, 81 , 925 P2d 107 (1996), aff'd 329 Or 62 , 987 P2d 463 , mod on recons 329 Or 369 , 987 P2d 476 (1999). 9 Our determination that ODOT could not be liable for contribution because Mitchell failed to serve a statutory notice of claim on ODOT is a holding on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion. 2000See Ross v. Cuthbert, 239 Or 429, 436 , 397 P2d 529 (1964); Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 144 Or App 52, 81 , 925 P2d 107 (1996), aff'd 329 Or 62 , 987 P2d 463 , mod on recons 329 Or 369 , 987 P2d 476 (1999). 9 Our determination that ODOT could not be liable for contribution because Mitchell failed to serve a statutory notice of claim on ODOT is a holding on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000See Ross v. Cuthbert, 239 Or 429, 436 , 397 P2d 529 (1964); Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 144 Or App 52, 81 , 925 P2d 107 (1996), aff'd 329 Or 62 , 987 P2d 463 , mod on recons 329 Or 369 , 987 P2d 476 (1999). 9 Our determination that ODOT could not be liable for contribution because Mitchell failed to serve a statutory notice of claim on ODOT is a holding on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion. 2000See Ross v. Cuthbert, 239 Or 429, 436 , 397 P2d 529 (1964); Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 144 Or App 52, 81 , 925 P2d 107 (1996), aff'd 329 Or 62 , 987 P2d 463 , mod on recons 329 Or 369 , 987 P2d 476 (1999). 9 Our determination that ODOT could not be liable for contribution because Mitchell failed to serve a statutory notice of claim on ODOT is a holding on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc.
red
2 sentences2000See Ross v. Cuthbert, 239 Or 429, 436 , 397 P2d 529 (1964); Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 144 Or App 52, 81 , 925 P2d 107 (1996), aff'd 329 Or 62 , 987 P2d 463 , mod on recons 329 Or 369 , 987 P2d 476 (1999). 9 Our determination that ODOT could not be liable for contribution because Mitchell failed to serve a statutory notice of claim on ODOT is a holding on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion. 2000See Ross v. Cuthbert, 239 Or 429, 436 , 397 P2d 529 (1964); Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 144 Or App 52, 81 , 925 P2d 107 (1996), aff'd 329 Or 62 , 987 P2d 463 , mod on recons 329 Or 369 , 987 P2d 476 (1999). 9 Our determination that ODOT could not be liable for contribution because Mitchell failed to serve a statutory notice of claim on ODOT is a holding on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Spicer
green
2 sentences1990(Emphasis added.) In State v. Spicer, 3 Or App 120 , 473 P2d 147 (1970), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding that the officers had complied with the statutory notice requirement. 1990App. 120 , 473 P.2d 147 (1970), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that the officers had complied with the statutory notice requirement. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.