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 1989–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stiles v. Godseygreen2 sentences2025“The element of actual use is satisfied if a claim- ant establishes a use of the land that would be made by an owner of the same type of land, taking into account the uses for which the land is suited.” Stiles, 233 Or App at 126 (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 In its letter opinion, the court stated that there was “no dispute that the elements of ‘maintained actual, open and notorious’ have been met” and that defendant agreed that hostility was proved (under the pure mistake doctrine)— although the court then proceeded to address the open and notorious require- ment. 2020See Stiles, 233 Or App at 127-28 (suggesting same). | 2 | 2 |
Faulconer v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2000Hoffman, 329 Or at 561 ; Faulconer, 327 Or at 391 . 2000See Hoffman, 329 Or at 563 . “[T]he element of hostility is met when the claimant intends to occupy the land as the owner and not in subordination to the true owner.” Faulconer, 327 Or at 391 . | 1 | 1 |
Hoffman v. Freeman Land and Timber, LLC.green2 sentences2000Hoffman, 329 Or at 561 ; Faulconer, 327 Or at 391 . 2000See Hoffman, 329 Or at 563 . “[T]he element of hostility is met when the claimant intends to occupy the land as the owner and not in subordination to the true owner.” Faulconer, 327 Or at 391 . | 1 | 1 |
Norgard v. Busher Et Uxgreen2 sentences1989See Norgard et al v. Busher et ux, 220 Or 297, 302 , 349 P2d 490 (1960); Kelley, “Property — 1960 Oregon Survey,” 40 Or L Rev 233, 234 (1961). 4 In Whitley v. Jacobs, 278 Or 541 , 564 P2d 1057 (1977), another case involving an irregular fence, the plaintiff maintained at trial that the irregular fence described the actual boundary, but the defendants presented evidence that the plaintiff had on previous occasions acknowledged that the fence was not on the property line. 1989See Norgard et al v. Busher et ux, 220 Or 297, 302 , 349 P2d 490 (1960); Kelley, “Property — 1960 Oregon Survey,” 40 Or L Rev 233, 234 (1961). 4 In Whitley v. Jacobs, 278 Or 541 , 564 P2d 1057 (1977), another case involving an irregular fence, the plaintiff maintained at trial that the irregular fence described the actual boundary, but the defendants presented evidence that the plaintiff had on previous occasions acknowledged that the fence was not on the property line. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Oregon State Hospital
neutral
2 sentences2025Cite as 342 Or App 569 (2025) 579 As to whether the Lausmanns, defendants’ prede- cessors in interest, had an honest belief that they actually owned the property on which the stairway was located, including the portion crossing 1347 Chetco, the record compels a finding under the applicable clear and convinc- ing evidence standard that they had that belief when they acquired 1339 Crissey and throughout the 16-year period that they owned it, that their belief had an objective basis, and that their belief was reasonable under the circumstanc- es.3 The court erred in concluding otherwise and in de 2025Cite as 342 Or App 569 (2025) 579 As to whether the Lausmanns, defendants’ prede- cessors in interest, had an honest belief that they actually owned the property on which the stairway was located, including the portion crossing 1347 Chetco, the record com- pels a finding under the applicable clear and convincing evi- dence standard that they had that belief when they acquired 1339 Crissey and throughout the 16-year period that they owned it, that their belief had an objective basis, and that their belief was reasonable under the circumstances.3 The court erred in concluding otherwise and in de | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Lopez v. Oregon State Hospital
green
2 sentences2025Cite as 342 Or App 569 (2025) 579 As to whether the Lausmanns, defendants’ prede- cessors in interest, had an honest belief that they actually owned the property on which the stairway was located, including the portion crossing 1347 Chetco, the record compels a finding under the applicable clear and convinc- ing evidence standard that they had that belief when they acquired 1339 Crissey and throughout the 16-year period that they owned it, that their belief had an objective basis, and that their belief was reasonable under the circumstanc- es.3 The court erred in concluding otherwise and in de 2025Cite as 342 Or App 569 (2025) 579 As to whether the Lausmanns, defendants’ prede- cessors in interest, had an honest belief that they actually owned the property on which the stairway was located, including the portion crossing 1347 Chetco, the record com- pels a finding under the applicable clear and convincing evi- dence standard that they had that belief when they acquired 1339 Crissey and throughout the 16-year period that they owned it, that their belief had an objective basis, and that their belief was reasonable under the circumstances.3 The court erred in concluding otherwise and in de | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Powers v. Dague
green
2 sentences2025Cite as 342 Or App 569 (2025) 579 As to whether the Lausmanns, defendants’ prede- cessors in interest, had an honest belief that they actually owned the property on which the stairway was located, including the portion crossing 1347 Chetco, the record compels a finding under the applicable clear and convinc- ing evidence standard that they had that belief when they acquired 1339 Crissey and throughout the 16-year period that they owned it, that their belief had an objective basis, and that their belief was reasonable under the circumstanc- es.3 The court erred in concluding otherwise and in de 2025Cite as 342 Or App 569 (2025) 579 As to whether the Lausmanns, defendants’ prede- cessors in interest, had an honest belief that they actually owned the property on which the stairway was located, including the portion crossing 1347 Chetco, the record com- pels a finding under the applicable clear and convincing evi- dence standard that they had that belief when they acquired 1339 Crissey and throughout the 16-year period that they owned it, that their belief had an objective basis, and that their belief was reasonable under the circumstances.3 The court erred in concluding otherwise and in de | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Wood v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2025And, the statute circumscribes the pendency of that honest belief: from when those persons first entered into possession of the property and continuing throughout the vesting period.2 2 And, as we have observed, “proof of the requisite ‘honest belief’ will nor- mally establish hostile possession under claim of right, by application of the pure-mistake doctrine.” Wood v. Taylor, 307 Or App 688, 699 , 479 P3d 560 (2020) (where the defendants claim an honest but mistaken belief of ownership, the hon- est belief and hostility elements may be analyzed together). 2025And, the statute circumscribes the pendency of that honest belief: from when those persons first entered into possession of the property and continuing throughout the vesting period.2 2 And, as we have observed, “proof of the requisite ‘honest belief’ will nor- mally establish hostile possession under claim of right, by application of the pure-mistake doctrine.” Wood v. Taylor, 307 Or App 688, 699 , 479 P3d 560 (2020) (where the defendants claim an honest but mistaken belief of ownership, the hon- est belief and hostility elements may be analyzed together). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Whitley v. Jacobs
green
2 sentences1989See Norgard et al v. Busher et ux, 220 Or 297, 302 , 349 P2d 490 (1960); Kelley, “Property — 1960 Oregon Survey,” 40 Or L Rev 233, 234 (1961). 4 In Whitley v. Jacobs, 278 Or 541 , 564 P2d 1057 (1977), another case involving an irregular fence, the plaintiff maintained at trial that the irregular fence described the actual boundary, but the defendants presented evidence that the plaintiff had on previous occasions acknowledged that the fence was not on the property line. 1989See Norgard et al v. Busher et ux, 220 Or 297, 302 , 349 P2d 490 (1960); Kelley, “Property — 1960 Oregon Survey,” 40 Or L Rev 233, 234 (1961). 4 In Whitley v. Jacobs, 278 Or 541 , 564 P2d 1057 (1977), another case involving an irregular fence, the plaintiff maintained at trial that the irregular fence described the actual boundary, but the defendants presented evidence that the plaintiff had on previous occasions acknowledged that the fence was not on the property line. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.