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 1986–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
High v. Davisgreen2 sentences1997See High v. Davis, 283 Or 315 , 584 P2d 725 (1978) (for bank’s mortgage to be superior in priority, it must have been taken in good faith for value and without notice); see generally 55 Am Jur 2d, Mortgages, § 308 (a mortgagee is entitled to protection as purchaser for these purposes). 1997See High v. Davis, 283 Or 315 , 584 P2d 725 (1978) (for bank’s mortgage to be superior in priority, it must have been taken in good faith for value and without notice); see generally 55 Am Jur 2d, Mortgages, § 308 (a mortgagee is entitled to protection as purchaser for these purposes). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gorzeman v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2023Id. 2023Id. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Tupper v. Roan
green
1 sentence2019For example, in explaining the bona fide purchaser rule—the principle that property in the hands of a bona fide purchaser cannot be recovered through a constructive trust, see Tupper, 349 Or at 223—the Restatement explained: “This principle is most frequently applied to the situation where a person holds property subject to a constructive trust and transfers it to a person who pays value without notice of the facts which gave rise to the constructive trust; in which case the constructive trust is cut off.” 572 Wadsworth v. Talmage Restatement (First) of Restitution § 172 comment a. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Webb v. Stewart
green
1 sentence1997Id. *242 The bona fide purchaser rule applies to lenders as well as to purchasers. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Davis
neutral
2 sentences1990Rather, evidence of those assignments was received for the sole purpose of showing the “background” of the “transaction,” more specifically that defendant had actual knowledge of his former wife’s intent to have transferred previous interests. 6 As we said in FDIC v. Davis, 82 Or App 8, 12 , 727 P2d 133 (1986), “In order for the bona fide purchaser rule to work, there must be an interest for it to protect.” At trial, plaintiff depended solely on the September 15 assignment. 1990Rather, evidence of those assignments was received for the sole purpose of showing the “background” of the “transaction,” more specifically that defendant had actual knowledge of his former wife’s intent to have transferred previous interests. 6 As we said in FDIC v. Davis, 82 Or App 8, 12 , 727 P2d 133 (1986), “In order for the bona fide purchaser rule to work, there must be an interest for it to protect.” At trial, plaintiff depended solely on the September 15 assignment. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Tucker v. Ottenheimer
neutral
2 sentences1986As was said in Tucker v. Ottenheimer, 46 Or 585, 590 , 81 P 360 (1905): “There is no [claim of an] agreement for a mortgage * * *, and part performance in pursuance thereof. 1986As was said in Tucker v. Ottenheimer, 46 Or 585, 590 , 81 P 360 (1905): “There is no [claim of an] agreement for a mortgage * * *, and part performance in pursuance thereof. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.