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 2017–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Meekgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Meek, 266 Or App 550, 556 , 338 P3d 767 (2014) (“Text, however, cannot be viewed in isolation, but must, instead, be consid- ered in the totality of the statutory framework.”). 2026See State v. Meek, 266 Or App 550, 556 , 338 P3d 767 (2014) (“Text, however, cannot be viewed in isolation, but must, instead, be consid- ered in the totality of the statutory framework.”). | 3 | 7 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. DM
green
2 sentences2026Under ORS 125.300(1)(a), a court may appoint a guardian for an adult only “as is necessary to promote and protect the well-being of the person,” and “only to the extent necessitated by the person’s actual mental and physical limitations.” (Emphasis added.) The legislature’s use of the word “actual” reinforces that speculative or potential future harms are insufficient to justify the imposition of a guardianship.4 A guardian 4 This reading is consistent with our interpretation of the civil commitment statutes, which likewise require clear and convincing evidence that a person is dangerous to se 2026Under ORS 125.300(1)(a), a court may appoint a guardian for an adult only “as is necessary to promote and protect the well-being of the person,” and “only to the extent necessitated by the person’s actual mental and physical limitations.” (Emphasis added.) The legislature’s use of the word “actual” reinforces that speculative or potential future harms are insufficient to justify the imposition of a guardianship.4 A guardian 4 This reading is consistent with our interpretation of the civil commitment statutes, which likewise require clear and convincing evidence that a person is dangerous to se | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2019App. 546 , 561, 126 P.3d 6 , rev. den. , 340 Or. 483 , 135 P.3d 318 (2006) (the chapter in which a provision is codified is relevant context). 2019App. 546 , 561, 126 P.3d 6 , rev. den. , 340 Or. 483 , 135 P.3d 318 (2006) (the chapter in which a provision is codified is relevant context). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Morsman v. City of Madras
green
2 sentences2019App. 550 , 556, 338 P.3d 767 (2014) (the text of a statute must be considered in the totality of the statutory framework); Morsman v. City of Madras , 203 Or. 2019App. 546 , 561, 126 P.3d 6 , rev. den. , 340 Or. 483 , 135 P.3d 318 (2006) (the chapter in which a provision is codified is relevant context). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.