6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. | ||
| 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. L. L.
neutral
1 sentence2021Dept. of Human Services v. Cite as 316 Or App 274 (2021) 277 T. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Dept. of Human Services v. C. C.
green
2 sentences2021Douglas County Circuit Court 20JU01466; A174678 501 P3d 1129 In this juvenile dependency case, father failed to appear at a scheduled hearing at which he had been ordered to personally appear. 2021Cite as 315 Or App 459 (2021) 461 HADLOCK, J. pro tempore In this dependency case, father failed to appear at a scheduled hearing at which he had been ordered to per- sonally appear. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Church v. Gladden
green
2 sentences2020On appeal, in the brief submitted through counsel, he assigns error to (1) the post-conviction court’s denial of his lawyer’s motion to withdraw, filed one week before the scheduled hearing date; and (2) the post- conviction court’s denial of his motion to continue the hear- ing date to allow for consideration of petitioner’s motion filed under Church v. Gladden, 244 Or 308 , 417 P2d 993 (1966). 2020On appeal, in the brief submitted through counsel, he assigns error to (1) the post-conviction court’s denial of his lawyer’s motion to withdraw, filed one week before the scheduled hearing date; and (2) the post- conviction court’s denial of his motion to continue the hear- ing date to allow for consideration of petitioner’s motion filed under Church v. Gladden, 244 Or 308 , 417 P2d 993 (1966). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences1996In State v. Brown, 96 Or App 171, 175 , 772 P2d 429 (1989), we emphasized that Article I, section 9, requires that “no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation.” 1 (Emphasis supplied.) In State v. Noble, 314 Or 624, 629 , 842 P2d 780 (1992), the Supreme Court, interpreting ORS 133.340, 2 held that when a crime is committed in the *697 “physical presence of a judicial officer acting in the judicial officer’s official capacity!,] [flor example, * * * when a party fails to appear without excuse at the time and place of a scheduled hearing, * * * the facts gi 1996In State v. Brown, 96 Or App 171, 175 , 772 P2d 429 (1989), we emphasized that Article I, section 9, requires that “no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation.” 1 (Emphasis supplied.) In State v. Noble, 314 Or 624, 629 , 842 P2d 780 (1992), the Supreme Court, interpreting ORS 133.340, 2 held that when a crime is committed in the *697 “physical presence of a judicial officer acting in the judicial officer’s official capacity!,] [flor example, * * * when a party fails to appear without excuse at the time and place of a scheduled hearing, * * * the facts gi | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Noble
green
2 sentences1996In State v. Brown, 96 Or App 171, 175 , 772 P2d 429 (1989), we emphasized that Article I, section 9, requires that “no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation.” 1 (Emphasis supplied.) In State v. Noble, 314 Or 624, 629 , 842 P2d 780 (1992), the Supreme Court, interpreting ORS 133.340, 2 held that when a crime is committed in the *697 “physical presence of a judicial officer acting in the judicial officer’s official capacity!,] [flor example, * * * when a party fails to appear without excuse at the time and place of a scheduled hearing, * * * the facts gi 1996In State v. Brown, 96 Or App 171, 175 , 772 P2d 429 (1989), we emphasized that Article I, section 9, requires that “no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation.” 1 (Emphasis supplied.) In State v. Noble, 314 Or 624, 629 , 842 P2d 780 (1992), the Supreme Court, interpreting ORS 133.340, 2 held that when a crime is committed in the *697 “physical presence of a judicial officer acting in the judicial officer’s official capacity!,] [flor example, * * * when a party fails to appear without excuse at the time and place of a scheduled hearing, * * * the facts gi | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Williams v. SAIF Corp.
green
2 sentences1990If the party that waives appearance is the party that requested the hearing, the referee shall dismiss the request for hearing as having been abandoned unless extraordinary circumstances justify postponement or continuance of the hearing.” Williams v. SAIF, 99 Or App 367, 369 , 781 P2d 1269 (1989) (footnote omitted). 1990If the party that waives appearance is the party that requested the hearing, the referee shall dismiss the request for hearing as having been abandoned unless extraordinary circumstances justify postponement or continuance of the hearing.” Williams v. SAIF, 99 Or App 367, 369 , 781 P2d 1269 (1989) (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
McCarthy v. Coos Head Timber Co.
green
2 sentences1974McCarthy v. Coos Timber Co., 208 Or 371 , 302 P2d 238 (1956); O. & C. 1974McCarthy v. Coos Timber Co., 208 Or 371 , 302 P2d 238 (1956); O. & C. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.