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 2012–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burke v. Public Welfare Divisiongreen2 sentences2025That is, “an agency’s pronouncement of how a validly promulgated rule operates in a specific con- text need not itself be promulgated as a rule if the existing rule necessarily requires the result set forth in that pro- nouncement.” Id. 2025See Burke, 31 Or App at 165 (“[A]n agency’s pronouncement of how a validly promulgated rule operates in a specific context need not itself be promul- gated as a rule if the existing rule necessarily requires the result set forth in that pronouncement.”). | 4 | 4 |
Smith v. Two Rivers Correctional Institutiongreen2 sentences2019An agency's explanation of how "a validly promulgated rule operates in a specific context need not itself be promulgated as a rule if the unpromulgated elaboration merely explains what is necessarily required by the rule to which it applies." Smith v. TRCI , 259 Or. 2019App. at 17 , 312 P.3d 568 (an "agency's pronouncement of how a validly promulgated rule operates in a specific context need not itself be promulgated as a rule if the existing rule necessarily requires the result set forth in that pronouncement" (emphasis in original, internal quotation marks omitted)). | 3 | 5 |
Associated Oregon Veterans v. Department of Veterans' Affairsgreen2 sentences2013See Burke, 31 Or App at 165 (“There is no reason to require the formalities of rulemaking whenever an agency undertakes to explain the necessary requirements of an existing rule.”); see also Associated Oregon Veterans v. DVA (A46714), 94 Or App 510, 514 , 766 P2d 1040 , rev den, 306 Or 527 (1988) (“An administrative agency need not engage in the formalities of rulemaking if its directive is merely an application of an existing rule and if the existing rule necessarily requires the result set forth in that directive.”). 2013See Burke, 31 Or App at 165 (“There is no reason to require the formalities of rulemaking whenever an agency undertakes to explain the necessary requirements of an existing rule.”); see also Associated Oregon Veterans v. DVA (A46714), 94 Or App 510, 514 , 766 P2d 1040 , rev den, 306 Or 527 (1988) (“An administrative agency need not engage in the formalities of rulemaking if its directive is merely an application of an existing rule and if the existing rule necessarily requires the result set forth in that directive.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.