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 1980–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rogers v. State Accident Insurance Fund
green
2 sentences1980Employment of a unitary test, more closely aligned with the purpose of the Act, will facilitate a simpler, cleaner, more direct inquiry into compensability.” Id., at 643-644 . 1980Employment of a unitary test, more closely aligned with the purpose of the Act, will facilitate a simpler, cleaner, more direct inquiry into compensability." Id., at 643-644 , 616 P.2d 485 . | 3 | 1980–1983 |
Allen v. State Accident Insurance Fund
green
2 sentences1980The court also directed that " The statutory phrase 'arising out of and in the course of employment” must be applied in each case so as to best effectuate the socio-economic purpose of the Worker’s (sic) Compensation Act: the financial protection of the worker and his/her family from poverty due to injury incurred in production, regardless of fault, as an inherent cost of the product to the consumer. " 'It is the basic purpose of the Act which gives weight to particular facts and direction to the analysis of whether an injury arises out of and in the course of employment.’ ” Id., at 642-643 , 1980The court also directed that " The statutory phrase 'arising out of and in the course of employment” must be applied in each case so as to best effectuate the socio-economic purpose of the Worker’s (sic) Compensation Act: the financial protection of the worker and his/her family from poverty due to injury incurred in production, regardless of fault, as an inherent cost of the product to the consumer. " 'It is the basic purpose of the Act which gives weight to particular facts and direction to the analysis of whether an injury arises out of and in the course of employment.’ ” Id., at 642-643 , | 2 | 1980–1980 |
Redman Industries, Inc. v. Lang
green
2 sentences2019Under the unitary test for work-connectedness, a claimant cannot establish a compensable injury unless both the "arising out of" employment prong and the "in the course of" employment prong are satisfied to at least "some degree." Redman Industries , 326 Or. at 35 , 943 P.2d 208 . 2019Under the unitary test for work-connectedness, a claimant cannot establish a compensable injury unless both the "arising out of" employment prong and the "in the course of" employment prong are satisfied to at least "some degree." Redman Industries , 326 Or. at 35 , 943 P.2d 208 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Asa Investerings Partnership,appellants v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
green
1 sentence2008Commissioner (ASA Investerings) , 201 F3d 505 , 512 (DC Cir 2000). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Allied-Signal, Inc. Ex Rel. Bendix Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxation
green
2 sentences1999Defendant correctly states that the unitary test defined in ASARCO and Woolworth was reaffirmed by Allied Signal, Inc. v. Dir., Division of Taxation, 504 US 768 , 112 S Ct 2251 , 119 L Ed 2d 533 (1992). 1999Defendant correctly states that the unitary test defined in ASARCO and Woolworth was reaffirmed by Allied Signal, Inc. v. Dir., Division of Taxation, 504 US 768 , 112 S Ct 2251 , 119 L Ed 2d 533 (1992). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore
green
2 sentences1997Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or 363, 366 , 867 P2d 1373 (1994). 1997Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or 363, 366 , 867 P2d 1373 (1994). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.
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.