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 2014–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. SAIF Corp. (In re Taylor)green2 sentences2025See Taylor, 295 Or App at 203 (to satisfy the substan- tial reason requirement, “[the board] must articulate how the application of those factors supports the amount of fees awarded” (emphasis in original)). 2025See Taylor, 295 Or App at 203 (to satisfy the substan- tial reason requirement, “[the board] must articulate how the application of those factors supports the amount of fees awarded” (emphasis in original)). | 2 | 2 |
Jenkins v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervisiongreen2 sentences2023We review the board’s order “for legal error, substan- tial evidence, and substantial reason.” Bell, 283 Or App at 713 ; see also Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 213-14 , 335 P3d 828 (2014) (board orders must “satisfy the substan- tial reason requirement that this court has held is implied in the substantial evidence standard of review to which the board’s orders are subject under ORS 183.482(8)(c)”); ORS 144.335(3) (“The Court of Appeals may affirm, reverse or remand [a parole board order] on the same basis as provided in ORS 183.482(8).”); ORS 183.482(8)(c) (providing for sub- stanti 2023We review the board’s order “for legal error, substan- tial evidence, and substantial reason.” Bell, 283 Or App at 713 ; see also Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 213-14 , 335 P3d 828 (2014) (board orders must “satisfy the substan- tial reason requirement that this court has held is implied in the substantial evidence standard of review to which the board’s orders are subject under ORS 183.482(8)(c)”); ORS 144.335(3) (“The Court of Appeals may affirm, reverse or remand [a parole board order] on the same basis as provided in ORS 183.482(8).”); ORS 183.482(8)(c) (providing for sub- stanti | 2 | 2 |
Drew v. Psychiatric Security Review Boardgreen2 sentences2026Goin v. Employment Dept., 203 Or App 758, 763 , 126 P3d 734 (2006); see also Drew v. PSRB, 322 Or 491, 499-500 , 909 P2d 1211 (1996) (addressing line of decisions since 1975 holding that agencies “are required to demonstrate in their opinions the reasoning that leads the agency from the facts that it has found to the conclusions that it draws from those facts” (emphases in original)). 2026Goin v. Employment Dept., 203 Or App 758, 763 , 126 P3d 734 (2006); see also Drew v. PSRB, 322 Or 491, 499-500 , 909 P2d 1211 (1996) (addressing line of decisions since 1975 holding that agencies “are required to demonstrate in their opinions the reasoning that leads the agency from the facts that it has found to the conclusions that it draws from those facts” (emphases in original)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bell v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
green
2 sentences2023We review the board’s order “for legal error, substan- tial evidence, and substantial reason.” Bell, 283 Or App at 713 ; see also Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 213-14 , 335 P3d 828 (2014) (board orders must “satisfy the substan- tial reason requirement that this court has held is implied in the substantial evidence standard of review to which the board’s orders are subject under ORS 183.482(8)(c)”); ORS 144.335(3) (“The Court of Appeals may affirm, reverse or remand [a parole board order] on the same basis as provided in ORS 183.482(8).”); ORS 183.482(8)(c) (providing for sub- stanti 2023We review the board’s order “for legal error, substan- tial evidence, and substantial reason.” Bell, 283 Or App at 713 ; see also Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 213-14 , 335 P3d 828 (2014) (board orders must “satisfy the substan- tial reason requirement that this court has held is implied in the substantial evidence standard of review to which the board’s orders are subject under ORS 183.482(8)(c)”); ORS 144.335(3) (“The Court of Appeals may affirm, reverse or remand [a parole board order] on the same basis as provided in ORS 183.482(8).”); ORS 183.482(8)(c) (providing for sub- stanti | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Goin v. Employment Department
green
2 sentences2026Goin v. Employment Dept., 203 Or App 758, 763 , 126 P3d 734 (2006); see also Drew v. PSRB, 322 Or 491, 499-500 , 909 P2d 1211 (1996) (addressing line of decisions since 1975 holding that agencies “are required to demonstrate in their opinions the reasoning that leads the agency from the facts that it has found to the conclusions that it draws from those facts” (emphases in original)). 2026Goin v. Employment Dept., 203 Or App 758, 763 , 126 P3d 734 (2006); see also Drew v. PSRB, 322 Or 491, 499-500 , 909 P2d 1211 (1996) (addressing line of decisions since 1975 holding that agencies “are required to demonstrate in their opinions the reasoning that leads the agency from the facts that it has found to the conclusions that it draws from those facts” (emphases in original)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Martin v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
green
2 sentences2014The board replied that the order was not subject to the substan- tial reason requirement because the Legislature had eliminated that require- ment for board orders when it amended ORS 144.335(3) in 1999 in response to this court’s decision in Martin v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 147 , 957 P2d 1210 (1998). 2014The board replied that the order was not subject to the substan- tial reason requirement because the Legislature had eliminated that require- ment for board orders when it amended ORS 144.335(3) in 1999 in response to this court’s decision in Martin v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 147 , 957 P2d 1210 (1998). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.