6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Delonggreen2 sentences2018See Delong , 357 Or. at 381 , 350 P.3d 433 (explaining that, even though illegally obtained evidence may not be admissible at trial, it is admissible at a suppression hearing to prove or disprove attenuation). 2018See Delong , 357 Or. at 381 , 350 P.3d 433 (explaining that, even though illegally obtained evidence may not be admissible at trial, it is admissible at a suppression hearing to prove or disprove attenuation). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dept. of Human Services v. C. C.
neutral
2 sentences2025ORS 419B.875(2) then provides a nonexclusive list of the parties’ rights: “The rights of the parties include, but are not limited to: “(a) The right to notice of the proceeding and copies of the petitions, answers, motions and other papers; “(b) The right to appear with counsel and, except for intervenors under subsection (1)(b) of this section, to have counsel appointed as otherwise provided by law; “(c) The right to call witnesses, cross-examine wit- nesses and participate in hearings; “(d) The right of appeal; and “(e) The right to request a hearing.” ORS 419B.875, thus, sets up a statutory 2025ORS 419B.875(2) then provides a non-exclusive list of the parties’ rights: “The rights of the parties include, but are not limited to: “(a) The right to notice of the proceeding and copies of the petitions, answers, motions and other papers; “(b) The right to appear with counsel and, except for intervenors under subsection (1)(b) of this section, to have counsel appointed as otherwise provided by law; “(c) The right to call witnesses, cross-examine wit- nesses and participate in hearings; “(d) The right of appeal; and “(e) The right to request a hearing.” ORS 419B.875, thus, sets up a statutor | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Sound Elevator v. Zwingraf
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Hathaway v. Health Future Enterprises
green
1 sentence1994We also agree with insurer’s contention that the terminology in the approval procedure, whereunder a physician may ‘request approval’ and an insurer or the director may ‘grant approval’ of palliative care, reflects a legislative intention not to treat a request for palliative care as a ‘claim’ under ORS 656.005(6) and ORS 656.283(1) that an insurer must ‘accept’ or ‘deny’ under ORS 656.262(6).5 In view of those textual obstacles, we are not persuaded by claimant’s argument that, in this context, the term ‘may’ plausibly can be interpreted to create, by implication, a right to request a hearing | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Jackson v. State Accident Insurance Fund
green
2 sentences1975In Jackson v. SAIF, 7 Or App 109, 116 , 490 P2d 507 (1971), we held, “* * * An employer cannot suspend benefits on his own motion, but he always has the right to request a hearing * * The claimant submitted 13 issues for consideration by the hearing referee. 1975In Jackson v. SAIF, 7 Or App 109, 116 , 490 P2d 507 (1971), we held, “* * * An employer cannot suspend benefits on his own motion, but he always has the right to request a hearing * * The claimant submitted 13 issues for consideration by the hearing referee. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.