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 1997–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Whitehead v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.green2 sentences2003See, e.g., Whitehead v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 194 Or 106 , 239 P2d 226 (1952) (release agreement is invalid where there was a great disparity between amount paid to the plaintiff and the damages actually sustained, the defendant misrepresented that the writing was a receipt and not a release, the plaintiff did not have independent legal advice, and the plaintiff could not read agreement because he did not have his glasses); Peluck v. Pac. 2003See, e.g., Whitehead v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 194 Or 106 , 239 P2d 226 (1952) (release agreement is invalid where there was a great disparity between amount paid to the plaintiff and the damages actually sustained, the defendant misrepresented that the writing was a receipt and not a release, the plaintiff did not have independent legal advice, and the plaintiff could not read agreement because he did not have his glasses); Peluck v. Pac. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen1 sentence2000See Brown, 310 Or at 356 (reasons for preservation rule are to allow adversary to present its position and to permit trial court to understand and correct any error). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ortiz
green
2 sentences2024As we explain below, we agree with defendant that under our recent decision in State v. Ortiz, 325 Or App 134 , 528 P3d 795 , rev allowed, 371 Or 308 (2023), the asserted legal error is plain. 2024As we explain below, we agree with defendant that under our recent decision in State v. Ortiz, 325 Or App 134 , 528 P3d 795 , rev allowed, 371 Or 308 (2023), the asserted legal error is plain. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Outdoor Media Dimensions, Inc. v. Department of Transportation
green
1 sentence2005In determining whether an asserted legal error is plain, we rely on “the law existing at the time the appeal is decided, and not as of the time of trial.” State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132, 136 , 57 P3d 970 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 504 (2003). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Jury
green
1 sentence2005In determining whether an asserted legal error is plain, we rely on “the law existing at the time the appeal is decided, and not as of the time of trial.” State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132, 136 , 57 P3d 970 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 504 (2003). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. King
green
2 sentences1997However, as discussed above, the existence of genuine uncertainty about whether the state legally was entitled to appeal regarding that asserted legal error means that an appeal was not a plainly available remedy in the ordinary course of law. [1] The majority says that its interpretation in Adams became "a part of the statute as if written therein," citing State v. King, 316 Or. 437, 445 , 852 P.2d 190 (1993), and that it is simply applying Adams "in a new factual setting." 324 Or. at 608-09 , 932 P.2d at 1152 . 1997However, as discussed above, the existence of genuine uncertainty about whether the state legally was entitled to appeal regarding that asserted legal error means that an appeal was not a plainly available remedy in the ordinary course of law. [1] The majority says that its interpretation in Adams became "a part of the statute as if written therein," citing State v. King, 316 Or. 437, 445 , 852 P.2d 190 (1993), and that it is simply applying Adams "in a new factual setting." 324 Or. at 608-09 , 932 P.2d at 1152 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State Ex Rel. Huddleston v. Sawyer
green
2 sentences1997However, as discussed above, the existence of genuine uncertainty about whether the state legally was entitled to appeal regarding that asserted legal error means that an appeal was not a plainly available remedy in the ordinary course of law. [1] The majority says that its interpretation in Adams became "a part of the statute as if written therein," citing State v. King, 316 Or. 437, 445 , 852 P.2d 190 (1993), and that it is simply applying Adams "in a new factual setting." 324 Or. at 608-09 , 932 P.2d at 1152 . 1997However, as discussed above, the existence of genuine uncertainty about whether the state legally was entitled to appeal regarding that asserted legal error means that an appeal was not a plainly available remedy in the ordinary course of law. [1] The majority says that its interpretation in Adams became "a part of the statute as if written therein," citing State v. King, 316 Or. 437, 445 , 852 P.2d 190 (1993), and that it is simply applying Adams "in a new factual setting." 324 Or. at 608-09 , 932 P.2d at 1152 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.