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.
6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Martin v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervisiongreen1 sentence2013Martin, 327 Or at 155 (emphasis added); see also ORS 183.315(1) (“The provisions of ORS * * * 183.470 *** do not apply to *** [the] State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision.”). | 1 | 1 |
Hay v. Oregon Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence1994See Hay v. Dept. of Transportation, supra, 301 Or at 137 (after determining the nature of the agency action at issue, the next step in APA analysis is determining whether ORS 183.400(1) or (2) governs review of the rule). | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Oregon Beauty Supply Co.green2 sentences1992See Lewis v. Oregon Beauty Supply Co., 302 Or 616, 622 , 733 P2d 430 (1987), and authorities there cited. 1992See Lewis v. Oregon Beauty Supply Co., 302 Or 616, 622 , 733 P2d 430 (1987), and authorities there cited. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oregon Health Care Ass'n v. Health Division
green
1 sentence2005ORS 183.480(3) provides: “No action or suit shall be maintained as to the validity of any agency order except a final order as provided in this section and ORS 183.482, 183.484, 183.490 and 183.500 or except upon showing that the agency is proceeding without probable cause, or that the party will suffer substantial and irreparable harm if interlocutory relief is not granted.” In Oregon Health Care Assn., the Supreme Court held that the two criteria identified in ORS 183.480(3) — proceeding without probable cause or substantial and irreparable harm — do not provide an independent basis for juri | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Price v. Board of Parole
neutral
2 sentences1998ORS 183.315(1) provides: “Except as otherwise provided [in a section unrelated to the Board], the provisions of ORS * * * 183.470 * * * do not apply to * * * [the] State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision.” Because it is not required by law to make findings of fact or conclusions of law, the Board reasons, it cannot be faulted legally for not doing so. *156 The Board relies on Price v. Board of Parole, 301 Or 393, 397 , 723 P2d 314 (1986), where the court said that an appellate court’s “authority to reverse or remand orders of the Board is only as comprehensive as provided in ORS 183. 1998ORS 183.315(1) provides: “Except as otherwise provided [in a section unrelated to the Board], the provisions of ORS * * * 183.470 * * * do not apply to * * * [the] State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision.” Because it is not required by law to make findings of fact or conclusions of law, the Board reasons, it cannot be faulted legally for not doing so. *156 The Board relies on Price v. Board of Parole, 301 Or 393, 397 , 723 P2d 314 (1986), where the court said that an appellate court’s “authority to reverse or remand orders of the Board is only as comprehensive as provided in ORS 183. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Goldberg v. Kelly
green
2 sentences1979Plaintiff contends, however, that independently of the trial court’s authority under the APA, its order was authorized and required by 45 CFR § 205.10 (a), and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as construed in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 US 254 , 90 S Ct 1011 , 25 L Ed 2d 287 (1970) and related cases. 1979Plaintiff contends, however, that independently of the trial court’s authority under the APA, its order was authorized and required by 45 CFR § 205.10 (a), and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as construed in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 US 254 , 90 S Ct 1011 , 25 L Ed 2d 287 (1970) and related cases. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.