relationship privilege (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

relationship privilege in Oregon

6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2021 1 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Warrengreen
or · 2018 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018Although the majority is willing to read those words so that offenses also "are alleged" to be related in one of the specified ways, see Warren, 364 Or. at 114, 430 P.3d at 1042-43, it is more plausible that the legislature intentionally used a different verb to describe the relationship requirement because the legislature intended that requirement to serve a different purpose.

11
Jessen v. Coltongreen
orctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018See, e.g. , Jessen v. Colton , 134 Or.

11
Top Service Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Insurancegreen
or · 1978 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
1 sentence

2003See, e.g., Top Service, 283 Or at 210 , 210 n 11 (listing “defamation” as one of several commonly employed “wrongful means” and noting the possibility that, for purposes of tortious inference, “[e]ven a recognized privilege may be overcome”).

11
Vokoun v. City of Lake Oswegogreen
orctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002See Vokoun, 169 Or App at 33 (noting that Court of Appeals did not address all assignments of error).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Jancsek green
or · 1986
2 sentences

2021In Haas, citing State v. Jancsek, 302 Or 270, 274 , 730 P2d 14 (1986), the Supreme Court noted that the deter- mination whether the lawyer-client privilege exists under OEC 503 hinges on three findings: “First, the communication must be ‘confidential’ within the meaning of OEC 503(1)(b).

2021In Haas, citing State v. Jancsek, 302 Or 270, 274 , 730 P2d 14 (1986), the Supreme Court noted that the deter- mination whether the lawyer-client privilege exists under OEC 503 hinges on three findings: “First, the communication must be ‘confidential’ within the meaning of OEC 503(1)(b).

12021–2021
Comcast Corp. v. Department of Revenue green
or · 2014
2 sentences

2018Because the verb "are" is the present tense of the intransitive verb "to be," Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 189 (unabridged ed. 2002), and a term of common usage, we assume that "the dictionary definition reflects the meaning that the legislature would naturally have intended." Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. , 356 Or. 282 , 296, 337 P.3d 768 (2014).

2018Because the verb "are" is the present tense of the intransitive verb "to be," Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 189 (unabridged ed. 2002), and a term of common usage, we assume that "the dictionary definition reflects the meaning that the legislature would naturally have intended." Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. , 356 Or. 282 , 296, 337 P.3d 768 (2014).

12018–2018
State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Dale green
or · 1977
2 sentences

1977Recently, in State ex rel Johnson v. Dale, 277 Or 359 , 560 P2d 650 (1977), we summarized the cases in which we have considered the relationship of the privilege to compulsory psychiatric examination.

1977Recently, in State ex rel Johnson v. Dale, 277 Or 359 , 560 P2d 650 (1977), we summarized the cases in which we have considered the relationship of the privilege to compulsory psychiatric examination.

11977–1977

Where else courts name it

CA 68 (1959–2026) PA 50 (1925–2026) TX 43 (1990–2023) FL 33 (1975–2026) WA 32 (1965–2026) IL 28 (1976–2024) NJ 26 (1976–2026) NY 20 (1979–2024) NC 17 (2001–2025) CT 17 (1980–2019) WI 17 (1973–2025) AL 14 (1956–2017) MO 11 (1975–2020) MS 11 (1968–2025) MN 10 (1956–2017) AZ 9 (1982–2023) ID 9 (1982–2017) MA 9 (1987–2024) KS 8 (1965–2015) DE 8 (1990–2025) WV 8 (1981–2022) UT 8 (1953–2012) NM 7 (1980–2024) OK 7 (1990–2026) IN 6 (1979–2013) OH 6 (2000–2013) CO 6 (2001–2025) VT 6 (1998–2013) IA 6 (1971–2001) OR 6 (1977–2021) TN 5 (1936–2025) AK 5 (1967–2024) SD 5 (1992–2026) SC 5 (2012–2021) VA 4 (1988–2025) LA 4 (1989–2013) NV 4 (1996–2018) KY 3 (2006–2020) MI 3 (1998–2008) DC 3 (1987–1999) HI 3 (1972–2008) RI 2 (1991–2010) VI 2 (1992–2005) NH 2 (1980–1996) MD 2 (2011–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check