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 2005–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Boyd v. Legacy Healthgreen2 sentences2024ORS 659A.199(1) provides: “It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discrim- inate or retaliate against an employee * * * for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.” Cite as 335 Or App 663 (2024) 679 That statute requires “a subjective, good-faith belief that the reported information is evidence of unlawful activity.” Folz v. ODOT, 287 Or App 667, 673 , 404 P3d 1036 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018); see a 2024ORS 659A.199(1) provides: “It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discrim- inate or retaliate against an employee * * * for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.” Cite as 335 Or App 663 (2024) 679 That statute requires “a subjective, good-faith belief that the reported information is evidence of unlawful activity.” Folz v. ODOT, 287 Or App 667, 673 , 404 P3d 1036 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018); see a | 2 | 2 |
Hall v. Stategreen2 sentences2024ORS 659A.199(1) provides: “It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discrim- inate or retaliate against an employee * * * for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.” Cite as 335 Or App 663 (2024) 679 That statute requires “a subjective, good-faith belief that the reported information is evidence of unlawful activity.” Folz v. ODOT, 287 Or App 667, 673 , 404 P3d 1036 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018); see a 2024ORS 659A.199(1) provides: “It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discrim- inate or retaliate against an employee * * * for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.” Cite as 335 Or App 663 (2024) 679 That statute requires “a subjective, good-faith belief that the reported information is evidence of unlawful activity.” Folz v. ODOT, 287 Or App 667, 673 , 404 P3d 1036 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018); see a | 2 | 2 |
Kramer v. City of Lake Oswegogreen1 sentence2020See Kramer, 365 Or at 450 (explaining that “the validity of the waterfront reso- lution depends upon whether the restriction on the public’s right to enter the water * * * is objectively reasonable under the circumstances”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Home Forward v. Graham
green
2 sentences2024ORS 659A.199(1) provides: “It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discrim- inate or retaliate against an employee * * * for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.” Cite as 335 Or App 663 (2024) 679 That statute requires “a subjective, good-faith belief that the reported information is evidence of unlawful activity.” Folz v. ODOT, 287 Or App 667, 673 , 404 P3d 1036 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018); see a 2024ORS 659A.199(1) provides: “It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discrim- inate or retaliate against an employee * * * for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.” Cite as 335 Or App 663 (2024) 679 That statute requires “a subjective, good-faith belief that the reported information is evidence of unlawful activity.” Folz v. ODOT, 287 Or App 667, 673 , 404 P3d 1036 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018); see a | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Cuddigan-Placito v. SAIF
green
2 sentences2024ORS 659A.199(1) provides: “It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discrim- inate or retaliate against an employee * * * for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.” Cite as 335 Or App 663 (2024) 679 That statute requires “a subjective, good-faith belief that the reported information is evidence of unlawful activity.” Folz v. ODOT, 287 Or App 667, 673 , 404 P3d 1036 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018); see a 2024ORS 659A.199(1) provides: “It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discrim- inate or retaliate against an employee * * * for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.” Cite as 335 Or App 663 (2024) 679 That statute requires “a subjective, good-faith belief that the reported information is evidence of unlawful activity.” Folz v. ODOT, 287 Or App 667, 673 , 404 P3d 1036 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018); see a | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Bjurstrom v. Oregon Lottery
green
2 sentences2024What constitutes a “report” under ORS 659A.199 is synonymous with “disclosure,” which we have identified as meaning “ ‘to make known’ or to ‘open up to general knowledge.’ ” McClusky v. City of North Bend, 332 Or App 1 , 11-12, 549 P3d 557 (2024) (discussing and synthesizing Bjurstrom v. Oregon Lottery, 202 Or App 162 , 120 P3d 1235 (2005), and Folz). 2024What constitutes a “report” under ORS 659A.199 is synonymous with “disclosure,” which we have identified as meaning “ ‘to make known’ or to ‘open up to general knowledge.’ ” McClusky v. City of North Bend, 332 Or App 1 , 11-12, 549 P3d 557 (2024) (discussing and synthesizing Bjurstrom v. Oregon Lottery, 202 Or App 162 , 120 P3d 1235 (2005), and Folz). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Folz v. State ex rel. Oregon Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2024ORS 659A.199(1) provides: “It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discrim- inate or retaliate against an employee * * * for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.” Cite as 335 Or App 663 (2024) 679 That statute requires “a subjective, good-faith belief that the reported information is evidence of unlawful activity.” Folz v. ODOT, 287 Or App 667, 673 , 404 P3d 1036 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018); see a 2024ORS 659A.199(1) provides: “It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discrim- inate or retaliate against an employee * * * for the reason that the employee has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.” Cite as 335 Or App 663 (2024) 679 That statute requires “a subjective, good-faith belief that the reported information is evidence of unlawful activity.” Folz v. ODOT, 287 Or App 667, 673 , 404 P3d 1036 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018); see a | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Perez-Rodriguez v. State
green
2 sentences2023Perez-Rodriguez v. State of Oregon, 364 Or 489, 498 , 435 P3d 746 (2019) (“[I]n apply- ing statutes of limitations, courts frequently consider men- tal illness or intellectual capacity as part of a statutory or common-law tolling rule that is separate from the discovery rule’s reasonableness inquiry. 2023Perez-Rodriguez v. State of Oregon, 364 Or 489, 498 , 435 P3d 746 (2019) (“[I]n apply- ing statutes of limitations, courts frequently consider men- tal illness or intellectual capacity as part of a statutory or common-law tolling rule that is separate from the discovery rule’s reasonableness inquiry. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Holmes
green
1 sentence2010Id. at 25 (citing State v. Toevs, 327 Or 525, 535-36 , 964 P2d 1007 (1998)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Toevs
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 25 (citing State v. Toevs, 327 Or 525, 535-36 , 964 P2d 1007 (1998)). 2010Id. at 25 (citing State v. Toevs, 327 Or 525, 535-36 , 964 P2d 1007 (1998)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Ashbaugh
green
1 sentence2010Id. at 25, 200 P.3d 149 (citing State v. Toevs, 327 Or. 525, 535-36 , 964 P.2d 1007 (1998)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Short v. Hill
green
1 sentence2005Cf. Flug v. University of Oregon, 335 Or 540, 553 , 73 P3d 917 (2003) (in context of tort action against public body, statute referring to a reasonable person’s understanding of claimant’s intention to assert a claim “invokes an objective reasonableness standard”); Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 241 , 94 P3d 885 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005) (in context of tort action, court determined whether evidence in record supported objective reasonableness of entity’s conduct); Morsman v. City of Madras, 191 Or App 149, 153-54 , 81 P3d 711 (2003) (in land use context, reasonab | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Roop v. PARKER NORTHWEST PAVING, CO.
green
2 sentences2005Cf. Flug v. University of Oregon, 335 Or 540, 553 , 73 P3d 917 (2003) (in context of tort action against public body, statute referring to a reasonable person’s understanding of claimant’s intention to assert a claim “invokes an objective reasonableness standard”); Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 241 , 94 P3d 885 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005) (in context of tort action, court determined whether evidence in record supported objective reasonableness of entity’s conduct); Morsman v. City of Madras, 191 Or App 149, 153-54 , 81 P3d 711 (2003) (in land use context, reasonab 2005Cf. Flug v. University of Oregon, 335 Or 540, 553 , 73 P3d 917 (2003) (in context of tort action against public body, statute referring to a reasonable person’s understanding of claimant’s intention to assert a claim “invokes an objective reasonableness standard”); Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 241 , 94 P3d 885 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005) (in context of tort action, court determined whether evidence in record supported objective reasonableness of entity’s conduct); Morsman v. City of Madras, 191 Or App 149, 153-54 , 81 P3d 711 (2003) (in land use context, reasonab | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Flug v. University of Oregon
green
2 sentences2005Cf. Flug v. University of Oregon, 335 Or 540, 553 , 73 P3d 917 (2003) (in context of tort action against public body, statute referring to a reasonable person’s understanding of claimant’s intention to assert a claim “invokes an objective reasonableness standard”); Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 241 , 94 P3d 885 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005) (in context of tort action, court determined whether evidence in record supported objective reasonableness of entity’s conduct); Morsman v. City of Madras, 191 Or App 149, 153-54 , 81 P3d 711 (2003) (in land use context, reasonab 2005Cf. Flug v. University of Oregon, 335 Or 540, 553 , 73 P3d 917 (2003) (in context of tort action against public body, statute referring to a reasonable person’s understanding of claimant’s intention to assert a claim “invokes an objective reasonableness standard”); Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 241 , 94 P3d 885 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005) (in context of tort action, court determined whether evidence in record supported objective reasonableness of entity’s conduct); Morsman v. City of Madras, 191 Or App 149, 153-54 , 81 P3d 711 (2003) (in land use context, reasonab | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Morsman v. City of Madras
green
2 sentences2005Cf. Flug v. University of Oregon, 335 Or 540, 553 , 73 P3d 917 (2003) (in context of tort action against public body, statute referring to a reasonable person’s understanding of claimant’s intention to assert a claim “invokes an objective reasonableness standard”); Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 241 , 94 P3d 885 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005) (in context of tort action, court determined whether evidence in record supported objective reasonableness of entity’s conduct); Morsman v. City of Madras, 191 Or App 149, 153-54 , 81 P3d 711 (2003) (in land use context, reasonab 2005Cf. Flug v. University of Oregon, 335 Or 540, 553 , 73 P3d 917 (2003) (in context of tort action against public body, statute referring to a reasonable person’s understanding of claimant’s intention to assert a claim “invokes an objective reasonableness standard”); Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 241 , 94 P3d 885 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005) (in context of tort action, court determined whether evidence in record supported objective reasonableness of entity’s conduct); Morsman v. City of Madras, 191 Or App 149, 153-54 , 81 P3d 711 (2003) (in land use context, reasonab | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.