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 1979–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Union Oil Co. v. Board of County Commissionersgreen2 sentences2010We rejected that contention, explaining, “The problem with petitioner’s argument is that it takes each of the tests or factors enumerated in Holmes as being wholly independent of the others.” Id. at 6 . 2010On further review in this court, the petitioner argued that the county erred in failing to include the petitioner’s purchase price for the property in evaluating the Holmes expenditure ratio factor, arguing that, “for purposes of the substantiality test, only the gross amount of expenditures is relevant, and the purpose of the expenditures can be considered only in connection with the type of expenditure test.” Id. at 5 (emphases in original). | 1 | 1 |
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commissiongreen2 sentences1979See Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm’n, supra, 432 US 333, 343 , 97 S Ct 2434 , 53 L Ed 2d 383 (1977). 1979See Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm’n, supra, 432 US 333, 343 , 97 S Ct 2434 , 53 L Ed 2d 383 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strunk v. Public Employees Retirement Board
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 206-07 . 2015Id. at 206-07 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Reguero v. Teacher Standards & Practices Commission
green
1 sentence2004Id. at 417-18 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Milcrest Corp. v. Clackamas County
green
2 sentences1986According to petitioner, our decisions in Cook v. Clackamas County, 50 Or App 75 , 622 P2d 1107 , rev den 290 Or 853 (1981), and Milcrest Corp. v. Clackamas County, 59 Or App 177 , 650 P2d 963 (1982), depart from Holmes insofar as they *6 treat the relationship of an expenditure to the specific use as being material to the substantiality test. 1986According to petitioner, our decisions in Cook v. Clackamas County, 50 Or App 75 , 622 P2d 1107 , rev den 290 Or 853 (1981), and Milcrest Corp. v. Clackamas County, 59 Or App 177 , 650 P2d 963 (1982), depart from Holmes insofar as they *6 treat the relationship of an expenditure to the specific use as being material to the substantiality test. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Cook v. Clackamas County
green
2 sentences1986According to petitioner, our decisions in Cook v. Clackamas County, 50 Or App 75 , 622 P2d 1107 , rev den 290 Or 853 (1981), and Milcrest Corp. v. Clackamas County, 59 Or App 177 , 650 P2d 963 (1982), depart from Holmes insofar as they *6 treat the relationship of an expenditure to the specific use as being material to the substantiality test. 1986According to petitioner, our decisions in Cook v. Clackamas County, 50 Or App 75 , 622 P2d 1107 , rev den 290 Or 853 (1981), and Milcrest Corp. v. Clackamas County, 59 Or App 177 , 650 P2d 963 (1982), depart from Holmes insofar as they *6 treat the relationship of an expenditure to the specific use as being material to the substantiality test. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.