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 1 courts 1938–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mallatt v. LUIHNgreen2 sentences2025As Justice Holmes once explained regarding the Equal Protection Clause, it “is not a pedagogical requirement of the impracticable”; a legislature “may do what it can to prevent what is deemed an evil and stop short of those cases in which the harm to the few concerned is thought less important than the harm to the public that would ensue if the rule laid down were made mathematically exact.” Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 US 265, 268 , 39 S Ct 273 , 63 L Ed 597 (1919); see, e.g., Mallatt v. Luihn et al., 206 Or 678, 702 , 294 P2d 871 (1956) (citing Dominion Hotel with approval and holding that 2025As Justice Holmes once explained regarding the Equal Protection Clause, it “is not a pedagogical requirement of the impracticable”; a legislature “may do what it can to prevent what is deemed an evil and stop short of those cases in which the harm to the few concerned is thought less important than the harm to the public that would ensue if the rule laid down were made mathematically exact.” Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 US 265, 268 , 39 S Ct 273 , 63 L Ed 597 (1919); see, e.g., Mallatt v. Luihn et al., 206 Or 678, 702 , 294 P2d 871 (1956) (citing Dominion Hotel with approval and holding that | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dominion Hotel, Inc. v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2025As Justice Holmes once explained regarding the Equal Protection Clause, it “is not a pedagogical requirement of the impracticable”; a legislature “may do what it can to prevent what is deemed an evil and stop short of those cases in which the harm to the few concerned is thought less important than the harm to the public that would ensue if the rule laid down were made mathematically exact.” Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 US 265, 268 , 39 S Ct 273 , 63 L Ed 597 (1919); see, e.g., Mallatt v. Luihn et al., 206 Or 678, 702 , 294 P2d 871 (1956) (citing Dominion Hotel with approval and holding that 2025As Justice Holmes once explained regarding the Equal Protection Clause, it “is not a pedagogical requirement of the impracticable”; a legislature “may do what it can to prevent what is deemed an evil and stop short of those cases in which the harm to the few concerned is thought less important than the harm to the public that would ensue if the rule laid down were made mathematically exact.” Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 US 265, 268 , 39 S Ct 273 , 63 L Ed 597 (1919); see, e.g., Mallatt v. Luihn et al., 206 Or 678, 702 , 294 P2d 871 (1956) (citing Dominion Hotel with approval and holding that | 6 | 1938–2025 |
Savage v. Martin
green
2 sentences1968And see Savage v. Martin, 161 Or 660, 694 , 91 P2d 273 . 1968And see Savage v. Martin, 161 Or 660, 694 , 91 P2d 273 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |