6 Oregon opinions name it 3 courts 2011–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
James v. Glazergreen1 sentence2021James v. Glazer, 570 A2d 1150, 1153 (Del 1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Deering v. Alexander
green
2 sentences2025As a general principle, “where the defendant desires to present evidence which does not directly controvert a fact necessary to be established by plaintiff, it is a new matter which must be pleaded as an affirmative defense.” Deering, 281 Or at 613 . 2020The Oregon Supreme Court recently reiterated what it means to be an affirmative defense: “ ‘[W]here the defendant desires to present evidence which does not directly controvert a fact necessary to be established by plaintiff, it is a new matter which must be pleaded as an affirmative defense.’ ” Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc., 351 Or 1, 17 , 261 P3d 1215 (2011) (quoting Deering v. Alexander, 281 Or 607, 613 , 576 P2d 8 (1978)). | 3 | 2011–2025 |
Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018TCR 19 B provides a non-exhaustive list of affirmative defenses, including “any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.” Generally, an affirmative defense does not directly contradict the facts pleaded by the plaintiff, but rather presents a “ new matter * * * consisting of a statement of facts different from those averred by the plaintiff and not embraced within the judicial inquiry into their truth.” See Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc., 351 Or 1, 17 , 261 P3d 1215 (2011) (concluding that, although neither an affirmative defense nor a cross-claim was “ideally designe 2018TCR 19 B provides a non-exhaustive list of affirmative defenses, including “any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.” Generally, an affirmative defense does not directly contradict the facts pleaded by the plaintiff, but rather presents a “ new matter * * * consisting of a statement of facts different from those averred by the plaintiff and not embraced within the judicial inquiry into their truth.” See Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc., 351 Or 1, 17 , 261 P3d 1215 (2011) (concluding that, although neither an affirmative defense nor a cross-claim was “ideally designe | 2 | 2018–2020 |
Koenig v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
neutral
1 sentence2021Such partial satisfaction shall be allowed without regard to whether the party claiming the reduction 5 In relevant part, ORCP 19 B provides: “In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirma- tively: accord and satisfaction; arbitration and award; assumption of risk; claim preclusion; comparative or contributory negligence; discharge in bank- ruptcy; duress; estoppel; failure of consideration; fraud; illegality; injury by fellow servant; issue preclusion; laches; license; payment; release; statute of frauds; statute of limitations; unconstitutionality; waiver; and any othe | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.