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 1977–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sierk v. Reynoldsgreen1 sentence1977See also, Sierk v. Reynolds, 484 SW2d 675 (Mo App 1972). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beck v. City of Tillamook
green
2 sentences2025We agree with LUBA that 1000 Friends waived the argument under the principles of waiver established in Beck v. City of Tillamook, 313 Or 148 , 831 P2d 678 (1992), because it could have been, but was not, raised on the first appeal to LUBA or to the county on remand. 3. 2025We agree with LUBA that 1000 Friends waived the argument under the principles of waiver established in Beck v. City of Tillamook, 313 Or 148 , 831 P2d 678 (1992), because it could have been, but was not, raised on the first appeal to LUBA or to the county on remand. 3. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Burlington Northern Inc. v. Lester
green
2 sentences2011Without such a rule, application of the principles of claim preclusion “would, in effect, create a law of compulsory counterclaim in Oregon” even though “[t]he law in this state is to the contrary.” Burlington Northern v. Lester, 48 Or App 579, 583 , 617 P2d 906 (1980). 2011Without such a rule, application of the principles of claim preclusion “would, in effect, create a law of compulsory counterclaim in Oregon” even though “[t]he law in this state is to the contrary.” Burlington Northern v. Lester, 48 Or App 579, 583 , 617 P2d 906 (1980). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Mende
green
2 sentences2009The state, however, cites State v. Mende, 304 Or 18 , 741 P2d 496 (1987), for the proposition that the principles of waiver upon which that case was decided are also controlling here. 2009The state, however, cites State v. Mende, 304 Or 18 , 741 P2d 496 (1987), for the proposition that the principles of waiver upon which that case was decided are also controlling here. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Lee v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2001We explained its relationship to the principles of claim preclusion in Lee v. Mitchell, 152 Or App 159 , 953 P2d 414 (1998): “The rule replaces the previous plea in abatement on the same ground. * * * «i]< % % íjí ifc *597 “* * * [T]here has always been a close connection between abatement for another action pending and the claim preclusion doctrines of merger and bar * * *. 2001We explained its relationship to the principles of claim preclusion in Lee v. Mitchell, 152 Or App 159 , 953 P2d 414 (1998): “The rule replaces the previous plea in abatement on the same ground. * * * «i]< % % íjí ifc *597 “* * * [T]here has always been a close connection between abatement for another action pending and the claim preclusion doctrines of merger and bar * * *. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.