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 2007–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lindell v. Kalugingreen2 sentences2024State v. Cloutier, 351 Or 68, 100 , 261 P3d 1234 (2011) (“Our analysis of [the statute] is also informed by this court’s prior construction of that statute or its prede- cessors.”); see also Lindell v. Kalugin, 353 Or 338, 349 , 297 P3d 1266 (2013) (“Case law existing at the time of the adop- tion” of a statute “forms a part of the context.”). 2024State v. Cloutier, 351 Or 68, 100 , 261 P3d 1234 (2011) (“Our analysis of [the statute] is also informed by this court’s prior construction of that statute or its prede- cessors.”); see also Lindell v. Kalugin, 353 Or 338, 349 , 297 P3d 1266 (2013) (“Case law existing at the time of the adop- tion” of a statute “forms a part of the context.”). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Althousegreen2 sentences2025Second, it is “within a presumptive sentence.” Cf. Althouse, 359 Or at 673 (noting “life without parole is not a sentence ‘within’ another sentence; that is, life without parole is not a sentence that falls within a range of possible sentences marked by minimum and maximum levels of severity”). 2025Second, it is “within a presumptive sentence.” Cf. Althouse, 359 Or at 673 (noting “life without parole is not a sentence ‘within’ another sentence; that is, life without parole is not a sentence that falls within a range of possible sentences marked by minimum and maximum levels of severity”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cloutiergreen2 sentences2024State v. Cloutier, 351 Or 68, 100 , 261 P3d 1234 (2011) (“Our analysis of [the statute] is also informed by this court’s prior construction of that statute or its prede- cessors.”); see also Lindell v. Kalugin, 353 Or 338, 349 , 297 P3d 1266 (2013) (“Case law existing at the time of the adop- tion” of a statute “forms a part of the context.”). 2024State v. Cloutier, 351 Or 68, 100 , 261 P3d 1234 (2011) (“Our analysis of [the statute] is also informed by this court’s prior construction of that statute or its prede- cessors.”); see also Lindell v. Kalugin, 353 Or 338, 349 , 297 P3d 1266 (2013) (“Case law existing at the time of the adop- tion” of a statute “forms a part of the context.”). | 2 | 2 |
Chavez v. Boise Cascade Corporationgreen2 sentences2007Compare Chavez v. Boise Cascade Corporation, 307 Or 632, 635 , 772 P2d 409 (1989) (stating that preclusive effect may be given to “necessary findings in a formal administrative adjudication if the parties had both a full opportunity and the incentive to contest the point at issue on a record that also was subject to judicial review”), with Rueda v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 180 Or 133, 156-57 , 175 P2d 778 (1946) (holding that limited grounds on which judicial review of arbitration decisions is available does not bar giving such decisions preclusive effect). 3 We note that neither of plainti 2007Compare Chavez v. Boise Cascade Corporation, 307 Or 632, 635 , 772 P2d 409 (1989) (stating that preclusive effect may be given to “necessary findings in a formal administrative adjudication if the parties had both a full opportunity and the incentive to contest the point at issue on a record that also was subject to judicial review”), with Rueda v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 180 Or 133, 156-57 , 175 P2d 778 (1946) (holding that limited grounds on which judicial review of arbitration decisions is available does not bar giving such decisions preclusive effect). 3 We note that neither of plainti | 1 | 1 |
Rueda v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.green2 sentences2007Compare Chavez v. Boise Cascade Corporation, 307 Or 632, 635 , 772 P2d 409 (1989) (stating that preclusive effect may be given to “necessary findings in a formal administrative adjudication if the parties had both a full opportunity and the incentive to contest the point at issue on a record that also was subject to judicial review”), with Rueda v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 180 Or 133, 156-57 , 175 P2d 778 (1946) (holding that limited grounds on which judicial review of arbitration decisions is available does not bar giving such decisions preclusive effect). 3 We note that neither of plainti 2007Compare Chavez v. Boise Cascade Corporation, 307 Or 632, 635 , 772 P2d 409 (1989) (stating that preclusive effect may be given to “necessary findings in a formal administrative adjudication if the parties had both a full opportunity and the incentive to contest the point at issue on a record that also was subject to judicial review”), with Rueda v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 180 Or 133, 156-57 , 175 P2d 778 (1946) (holding that limited grounds on which judicial review of arbitration decisions is available does not bar giving such decisions preclusive effect). 3 We note that neither of plainti | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kephart
green
1 sentence2022The holdings in the Court of Appeals cases were, thus, central to this court’s understanding of what the legislature had intended to accomplish by limiting the reviewability bar of former ORS 138.222(2)(d) to sentences resulting from a “stipulated sentencing agreement.” Id. at 445 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Adams
green
2 sentences2022This court first construed the reviewability bar in State v. Adams, 315 Or 359, 367 , 847 P2d 397 (1993), in which we held that former ORS 138.222(2)(d) (1989)—when applicable—precluded review of a component term of a sen- tence to which the parties had specifically agreed. 2022This court first construed the reviewability bar in State v. Adams, 315 Or 359, 367 , 847 P2d 397 (1993), in which we held that former ORS 138.222(2)(d) (1989)—when applicable—precluded review of a component term of a sen- tence to which the parties had specifically agreed. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.
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.