6 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
3000 Investment Corp. v. Teedgreen2 sentences2024Brewer and its progeny established that an arbitra- tor exceeds its powers only when it commits “certain legal or factual errors” that are “so grossly erroneous as to strike at the heart of the decision-making process.” 3000 Investment Corp., 313 Or App at 620 (applying the Brewer standard); Brewer, 248 Or at 562-63 ; see also Native Sun, 149 Or App at 629 (further refining the scope of review of an arbitrator’s decision under the Brewer standard). 2024Brewer and its progeny established that an arbitra- tor exceeds its powers only when it commits “certain legal or factual errors” that are “so grossly erroneous as to strike at the heart of the decision-making process.” 3000 Investment Corp., 313 Or App at 620 (applying the Brewer standard); Brewer, 248 Or at 562-63 ; see also Native Sun, 149 Or App at 629 (further refining the scope of review of an arbitrator’s decision under the Brewer standard). | 2 | 3 |
Native Sun v. L & H DEVELOPMENT, INC.green2 sentences2024Brewer and its progeny established that an arbitra- tor exceeds its powers only when it commits “certain legal or factual errors” that are “so grossly erroneous as to strike at the heart of the decision-making process.” 3000 Investment Corp., 313 Or App at 620 (applying the Brewer standard); Brewer, 248 Or at 562-63 ; see also Native Sun, 149 Or App at 629 (further refining the scope of review of an arbitrator’s decision under the Brewer standard). 2024Brewer and its progeny established that an arbitra- tor exceeds its powers only when it commits “certain legal or factual errors” that are “so grossly erroneous as to strike at the heart of the decision-making process.” 3000 Investment Corp., 313 Or App at 620 (applying the Brewer standard); Brewer, 248 Or at 562-63 ; see also Native Sun, 149 Or App at 629 (further refining the scope of review of an arbitrator’s decision under the Brewer standard). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ciancanelligreen2 sentences2002House, 66 Or.App. at 958 , 676 P.2d 892 . [19] House, like Judge Brewer's analysis, cannot be reconciled with Robertson or any other subsequent Supreme *463 Court decision concerning Article I, section 8. [20] Next, Judge Brewer takes us to task for failing "to come to terms with what the Supreme Court held in Henry. " 181 Or.App. at 43, 45 P.3d at 474 (Brewer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 2002House, 66 Or.App. at 958 , 676 P.2d 892 . [19] House, like Judge Brewer's analysis, cannot be reconciled with Robertson or any other subsequent Supreme *463 Court decision concerning Article I, section 8. [20] Next, Judge Brewer takes us to task for failing "to come to terms with what the Supreme Court held in Henry. " 181 Or.App. at 43, 45 P.3d at 474 (Brewer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rodriguez-Castillogreen1 sentence2007See 210 Or.App. at 528-29 , 151 P.3d at 957-58 (Brewer, C.J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brewer v. Allstate Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2024Brewer and its progeny established that an arbitra- tor exceeds its powers only when it commits “certain legal or factual errors” that are “so grossly erroneous as to strike at the heart of the decision-making process.” 3000 Investment Corp., 313 Or App at 620 (applying the Brewer standard); Brewer, 248 Or at 562-63 ; see also Native Sun, 149 Or App at 629 (further refining the scope of review of an arbitrator’s decision under the Brewer standard). 2024Brewer and its progeny established that an arbitra- tor exceeds its powers only when it commits “certain legal or factual errors” that are “so grossly erroneous as to strike at the heart of the decision-making process.” 3000 Investment Corp., 313 Or App at 620 (applying the Brewer standard); Brewer, 248 Or at 562-63 ; see also Native Sun, 149 Or App at 629 (further refining the scope of review of an arbitrator’s decision under the Brewer standard). | 2 | 2021–2024 |
State v. House
green
2 sentences2002House, 66 Or.App. at 958 , 676 P.2d 892 . [19] House, like Judge Brewer's analysis, cannot be reconciled with Robertson or any other subsequent Supreme *463 Court decision concerning Article I, section 8. [20] Next, Judge Brewer takes us to task for failing "to come to terms with what the Supreme Court held in Henry. " 181 Or.App. at 43, 45 P.3d at 474 (Brewer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 2002House, 66 Or.App. at 958 , 676 P.2d 892 . [19] House, like Judge Brewer's analysis, cannot be reconciled with Robertson or any other subsequent Supreme *463 Court decision concerning Article I, section 8. [20] Next, Judge Brewer takes us to task for failing "to come to terms with what the Supreme Court held in Henry. " 181 Or.App. at 43, 45 P.3d at 474 (Brewer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Nieto v. City of Talent
green
2 sentences2022Cite as 317 Or App 616 (2022) 627 In Nieto v. City of Talent, we repeated the expla- nation that “ ‘the grounds for obtaining the vacation of an [arbitration] award are extremely narrow in comparison with the scope of review available to litigants in court.’ ” 295 Or App 625, 629 , 436 P3d 82 (2019) (quoting Vasquez-Lopez v. Beneficial Oregon, Inc., 210 Or App 553, 568 , 152 P3d 940 (2007) (brackets in Nieto)). 2022Cite as 317 Or App 616 (2022) 627 In Nieto v. City of Talent, we repeated the expla- nation that “ ‘the grounds for obtaining the vacation of an [arbitration] award are extremely narrow in comparison with the scope of review available to litigants in court.’ ” 295 Or App 625, 629 , 436 P3d 82 (2019) (quoting Vasquez-Lopez v. Beneficial Oregon, Inc., 210 Or App 553, 568 , 152 P3d 940 (2007) (brackets in Nieto)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
McKeown v. McKeown
green
1 sentence2022Cite as 317 Or App 616 (2022) 627 In Nieto v. City of Talent, we repeated the expla- nation that “ ‘the grounds for obtaining the vacation of an [arbitration] award are extremely narrow in comparison with the scope of review available to litigants in court.’ ” 295 Or App 625, 629 , 436 P3d 82 (2019) (quoting Vasquez-Lopez v. Beneficial Oregon, Inc., 210 Or App 553, 568 , 152 P3d 940 (2007) (brackets in Nieto)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Vasquez-Lopez v. Beneficial Oregon, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022Cite as 317 Or App 616 (2022) 627 In Nieto v. City of Talent, we repeated the expla- nation that “ ‘the grounds for obtaining the vacation of an [arbitration] award are extremely narrow in comparison with the scope of review available to litigants in court.’ ” 295 Or App 625, 629 , 436 P3d 82 (2019) (quoting Vasquez-Lopez v. Beneficial Oregon, Inc., 210 Or App 553, 568 , 152 P3d 940 (2007) (brackets in Nieto)). 2022Cite as 317 Or App 616 (2022) 627 In Nieto v. City of Talent, we repeated the expla- nation that “ ‘the grounds for obtaining the vacation of an [arbitration] award are extremely narrow in comparison with the scope of review available to litigants in court.’ ” 295 Or App 625, 629 , 436 P3d 82 (2019) (quoting Vasquez-Lopez v. Beneficial Oregon, Inc., 210 Or App 553, 568 , 152 P3d 940 (2007) (brackets in Nieto)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.