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 1981–2010 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wardius v. Oregongreen2 sentences1997See Wardius v. Oregon, 412 US 470 , 93 S Ct 2208 , 37 L Ed 2d 82 (1973) (holding that a statute requiring the trial court to exclude the defendant’s alibi witness because the defendant failed to file the required notice of the defense violated the federal Due Process Clause). 1997See Wardius v. Oregon, 412 US 470 , 93 S Ct 2208 , 37 L Ed 2d 82 (1973) (holding that a statute requiring the trial court to exclude the defendant’s alibi witness because the defendant failed to file the required notice of the defense violated the federal Due Process Clause). | 1 | 1 |
Nyman v. City of Eugenegreen2 sentences1988See note 3, supra. Finally, LUBA ruled that the county’s failure to follow the requisite procedure and to provide Harding with the required notice and hearing “is not simply a procedural error, but one which deprives the county of jurisdiction to entertain a road vacation.” LUBA based its “jurisdictional” ruling on this court’s opinion in Nyman v. City of Eugene, 32 Or App 307 , 574 P2d 332 (1978), aff’d 286 Or 47 , 593 P2d 515 (1979). 1988See note 3, supra. Finally, LUBA ruled that the county’s failure to follow the requisite procedure and to provide Harding with the required notice and hearing “is not simply a procedural error, but one which deprives the county of jurisdiction to entertain a road vacation.” LUBA based its “jurisdictional” ruling on this court’s opinion in Nyman v. City of Eugene, 32 Or App 307 , 574 P2d 332 (1978), aff’d 286 Or 47 , 593 P2d 515 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Nyman v. City of Eugenegreen2 sentences1988See note 3, supra. Finally, LUBA ruled that the county’s failure to follow the requisite procedure and to provide Harding with the required notice and hearing “is not simply a procedural error, but one which deprives the county of jurisdiction to entertain a road vacation.” LUBA based its “jurisdictional” ruling on this court’s opinion in Nyman v. City of Eugene, 32 Or App 307 , 574 P2d 332 (1978), aff’d 286 Or 47 , 593 P2d 515 (1979). 1988See note 3, supra. Finally, LUBA ruled that the county’s failure to follow the requisite procedure and to provide Harding with the required notice and hearing “is not simply a procedural error, but one which deprives the county of jurisdiction to entertain a road vacation.” LUBA based its “jurisdictional” ruling on this court’s opinion in Nyman v. City of Eugene, 32 Or App 307 , 574 P2d 332 (1978), aff’d 286 Or 47 , 593 P2d 515 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coleman v. Oregon Parks & Recreation Department
green
2 sentences2010Coleman v. Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept., 347 Or 94 , 217 P3d 651 (2009) (Coleman II). 2010Coleman v. Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept., 347 Or 94 , 217 P3d 651 (2009) (Coleman II). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Coleman v. Oregon Parks & Recreation Department
green
2 sentences2010This appeal is before us on remand from the Supreme Court, which reversed our prior decision, Coleman v. Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept., 221 Or App 484 , 190 P3d 487 (2008) (Coleman I), and remanded for consideration of an issue that we did not reach in that decision, namely, whether the trial court erred by dismissing a claim for loss of consortium because of a failure to provide the required notice of that claim. 2010This appeal is before us on remand from the Supreme Court, which reversed our prior decision, Coleman v. Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept., 221 Or App 484 , 190 P3d 487 (2008) (Coleman I), and remanded for consideration of an issue that we did not reach in that decision, namely, whether the trial court erred by dismissing a claim for loss of consortium because of a failure to provide the required notice of that claim. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Vendrell v. School District No. 26C
green
2 sentences1994Vendrell v. School District No. 26C et al., 226 Or. 263, 278 , 360 P.2d 282 (1961). 1994Vendrell v. School District No. 26C et al., 226 Or. 263, 278 , 360 P.2d 282 (1961). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Scovell v. TRK Trans, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1985Because TRK provided the required notice of its claim, it is entitled to maintain its third-party action.” 71 Or App at 192-93 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Brennen v. City of Eugene
green
2 sentences1981These claims present different issues regarding theories of liability, regarding the exception for "discretionary functions,” see, e.g., Dizick v. Umpqua Community College, 287 Or 303 , 599 P2d 444 (1979); Brennen v. City of Eugene, 285 Or 401 , 591 P2d 719 (1979), and regarding the required notice of claim. 1981These claims present different issues regarding theories of liability, regarding the exception for "discretionary functions,” see, e.g., Dizick v. Umpqua Community College, 287 Or 303 , 599 P2d 444 (1979); Brennen v. City of Eugene, 285 Or 401 , 591 P2d 719 (1979), and regarding the required notice of claim. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Dizick v. Umpqua Community College
green
2 sentences1981These claims present different issues regarding theories of liability, regarding the exception for "discretionary functions,” see, e.g., Dizick v. Umpqua Community College, 287 Or 303 , 599 P2d 444 (1979); Brennen v. City of Eugene, 285 Or 401 , 591 P2d 719 (1979), and regarding the required notice of claim. 1981These claims present different issues regarding theories of liability, regarding the exception for "discretionary functions,” see, e.g., Dizick v. Umpqua Community College, 287 Or 303 , 599 P2d 444 (1979); Brennen v. City of Eugene, 285 Or 401 , 591 P2d 719 (1979), and regarding the required notice of claim. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.