6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Millenkamp v. Davisco Foods International, Inc.green2 sentences2024See, e.g., Millenkamp v. Davisco Foods Int’l, Inc., 562 F3d 971, 977 (9th Cir 2009) (analyzing how compliance with government regulations can be relevant to claims asserting breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose); Durrett v. Baxter Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 198 Neb 392, 395-96, 253 NW2d 37, 39 (1977) (explain- ing how compliance with government standards and reg- ulations can be used to defend in cases involving implied or express warranties); Clausing v. DeHart, 83 Wash 2d 70, 73-75, 515 P2d 982, 984-85 (1973) (assessing a breach of warranty claim where a contract f 2024See, e.g., Millenkamp v. Davisco Foods Int’l, Inc., 562 F3d 971, 977 (9th Cir 2009) (analyzing how compliance with government regulations can be relevant to claims asserting breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose); Durrett v. Baxter Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 198 Neb 392, 395-96, 253 NW2d 37, 39 (1977) (explain- ing how compliance with government standards and reg- ulations can be used to defend in cases involving implied or express warranties); Clausing v. DeHart, 83 Wash 2d 70, 73-75, 515 P2d 982, 984-85 (1973) (assessing a breach of warranty claim where a contract f | 2 | 2 |
Clausing v. DeHartgreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Millenkamp v. Davisco Foods Int’l, Inc., 562 F3d 971, 977 (9th Cir 2009) (analyzing how compliance with government regulations can be relevant to claims asserting breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose); Durrett v. Baxter Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 198 Neb 392, 395-96, 253 NW2d 37, 39 (1977) (explain- ing how compliance with government standards and reg- ulations can be used to defend in cases involving implied or express warranties); Clausing v. DeHart, 83 Wash 2d 70, 73-75, 515 P2d 982, 984-85 (1973) (assessing a breach of warranty claim where a contract f 2024See, e.g., Millenkamp v. Davisco Foods Int’l, Inc., 562 F3d 971, 977 (9th Cir 2009) (analyzing how compliance with government regulations can be relevant to claims asserting breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose); Durrett v. Baxter Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 198 Neb 392, 395-96, 253 NW2d 37, 39 (1977) (explain- ing how compliance with government standards and reg- ulations can be used to defend in cases involving implied or express warranties); Clausing v. DeHart, 83 Wash 2d 70, 73-75, 515 P2d 982, 984-85 (1973) (assessing a breach of warranty claim where a contract f | 2 | 2 |
Durrett v. Baxter Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.green2 sentences2024See, e.g., Millenkamp v. Davisco Foods Int’l, Inc., 562 F3d 971, 977 (9th Cir 2009) (analyzing how compliance with government regulations can be relevant to claims asserting breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose); Durrett v. Baxter Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 198 Neb 392, 395-96, 253 NW2d 37, 39 (1977) (explain- ing how compliance with government standards and reg- ulations can be used to defend in cases involving implied or express warranties); Clausing v. DeHart, 83 Wash 2d 70, 73-75, 515 P2d 982, 984-85 (1973) (assessing a breach of warranty claim where a contract f 2024See, e.g., Millenkamp v. Davisco Foods Int’l, Inc., 562 F3d 971, 977 (9th Cir 2009) (analyzing how compliance with government regulations can be relevant to claims asserting breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose); Durrett v. Baxter Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 198 Neb 392, 395-96, 253 NW2d 37, 39 (1977) (explain- ing how compliance with government standards and reg- ulations can be used to defend in cases involving implied or express warranties); Clausing v. DeHart, 83 Wash 2d 70, 73-75, 515 P2d 982, 984-85 (1973) (assessing a breach of warranty claim where a contract f | 2 | 2 |
Drake v. Searsgreen1 sentence2010See Drake v. Sears, 8 Or 209, 212 (1880) (An express warranty of an engine was breached when, without negligence or fault of the buyer, the engine failed.). 10 Plaintiffs further alleged that they incurred “[consequential damages” of not less than $500,000 for lost business profits during the time that the hotel was closed for repairs and for “administrative” costs. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martinez v. State
green
1 sentence2010Co., 228 Or App 454, 475 , 209 P3d 357 , rev allowed, 347 Or 258 (2009) (where an assignment of error addressed multiple rulings involving different legal issues and different preservation concerns, the court declined to reach all but one of the issues). 9 Under Oregon common law, fault of a buyer was treated as relevant to a breach of warranty claim against a seller. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Taylor v. Ramsay-Gerding Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2010Ramsay-Gerding replied in part that comparative fault was not a defense to a breach of warranty claim; plaintiffs joined in that assertion.” 215 Or App at 677 . 2010Id. at 680-90 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Strawn v. Farmers Insurance
green
2 sentences2010Co., 228 Or App 454, 475 , 209 P3d 357 , rev allowed, 347 Or 258 (2009) (where an assignment of error addressed multiple rulings involving different legal issues and different preservation concerns, the court declined to reach all but one of the issues). 9 Under Oregon common law, fault of a buyer was treated as relevant to a breach of warranty claim against a seller. 2010Co., 228 Or App 454, 475 , 209 P3d 357 , rev allowed, 347 Or 258 (2009) (where an assignment of error addressed multiple rulings involving different legal issues and different preservation concerns, the court declined to reach all but one of the issues). 9 Under Oregon common law, fault of a buyer was treated as relevant to a breach of warranty claim against a seller. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Houck v. Feller Living Trust
green
2 sentences2007Plaintiffs do not assign error to that ruling. 6 Houck v. Feller Living Trust, 191 Or App 39 , 79 P3d 1140 (2003), also is instructive. 2007Plaintiffs do not assign error to that ruling. 6 Houck v. Feller Living Trust, 191 Or App 39 , 79 P3d 1140 (2003), also is instructive. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Hamer v. Mayeda
green
1 sentence1989In so holding, however, we noted that “[u]nlike other attorney fee provisions, ORS 20.098(1) does not require the netting or weighing process commonly used to determine who is the prevailing party.” Hamer v. Mayeda, supra, 64 Or App at 708 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Seekings v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc.
green
1 sentence1982However, the Arizona court fought the express provisions of the UCC; to reach the desired result, it was necessary for the court to say that, although the disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability precluded a breach of warranty claim, it did not avoid revocation of acceptance “if the vehicle does not conform to the representation that it can be made like new within a reasonable time.” 638 P2d at 217 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.