6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2026 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. Wimbergreen1 sentence2026See Wimber, 315 Or at 114-15 (concluding 1 As I understand the majority opinion, it relies on State v. Pachmayr, 344 Or 482 , 185 P3d 1103 (2008), to apply the third question of Long—a variance analysis, viz., whether the defendant was, in fact, tried on the offense that was indicted by the grand jury—after it applies the Wimber test. 347 Or App at 624-25 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pachmayrgreen2 sentences2026See Wimber, 315 Or at 114-15 (concluding 1 As I understand the majority opinion, it relies on State v. Pachmayr, 344 Or 482 , 185 P3d 1103 (2008), to apply the third question of Long—a variance analysis, viz., whether the defendant was, in fact, tried on the offense that was indicted by the grand jury—after it applies the Wimber test. 347 Or App at 624-25 . 2026See Wimber, 315 Or at 114-15 (concluding 1 As I understand the majority opinion, it relies on State v. Pachmayr, 344 Or 482 , 185 P3d 1103 (2008), to apply the third question of Long—a variance analysis, viz., whether the defendant was, in fact, tried on the offense that was indicted by the grand jury—after it applies the Wimber test. 347 Or App at 624-25 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ainsworthgreen2 sentences2026In so doing, we disagree with the dissent that a decision about whether to evaluate a case under Wimber or Long reduces to a question of whether the indictment was amended. 347 Or App at 633-34 (Powers, J., dissenting). 2026See Wimber, 315 Or at 114-15 (concluding 1 As I understand the majority opinion, it relies on State v. Pachmayr, 344 Or 482 , 185 P3d 1103 (2008), to apply the third question of Long—a variance analysis, viz., whether the defendant was, in fact, tried on the offense that was indicted by the grand jury—after it applies the Wimber test. 347 Or App at 624-25 . | 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. Johnson
neutral
1 sentence2026Johnson, 342 Or App at 284 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Benton
green
1 sentence2025Benton, 317 Or App at 404 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Woodward
green
1 sentence2012Woodward, 187 Or App at 240 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Bienz v. City of Dayton
green
2 sentences2009As we noted in Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or.App. 761, 779 , 566 P.2d 904 , rev. den., 280 Or. 171 (1977), "[a]ny variance by definition is a use of property which is otherwise expressly prohibited by law." "A variance is an authorization for * * * the establishment or maintenance of a use of land, which is prohibited by a zoning ordinance." Patricia E. 2009As we noted in Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or.App. 761, 779 , 566 P.2d 904 , rev. den., 280 Or. 171 (1977), "[a]ny variance by definition is a use of property which is otherwise expressly prohibited by law." "A variance is an authorization for * * * the establishment or maintenance of a use of land, which is prohibited by a zoning ordinance." Patricia E. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc.
green
2 sentences1993Assn., 452 US 264 , 297 &n 40, 101 S Ct 2352 , 69 L Ed 2d 1 (1981) (Supreme Court noted that, although the statute at issue in that case, on its face, did not work a taking of the plaintiff s property, the plaintiff was not precluded from showing that the application of the statute to his property, including the statute’s variance and waiver provisions, effected a taking). 1993Assn., 452 US 264 , 297 &n 40, 101 S Ct 2352 , 69 L Ed 2d 1 (1981) (Supreme Court noted that, although the statute at issue in that case, on its face, did not work a taking of the plaintiff s property, the plaintiff was not precluded from showing that the application of the statute to his property, including the statute’s variance and waiver provisions, effected a taking). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Shanks v. Washington County
neutral
2 sentences1979Had plaintiff’s request for a variance been granted by the Common Council, the Dahls, in order to confer jurisdiction on the reviewing court in a writ of review proceeding, would have had to serve plaintiff as an "opposite party.” See Maizels v. Kozer, 129 Or 100 , 276 P 277 (1929); Williams v. Henry, 70 Or 466 , 142 P 377 (1914); Thompson v. Columbia County Comm’rs, 29 Or App 813 , 564 P2d 1376 (1977); Shanks v. Washington County, 22 Or App 426 , 539 P2d 1111 , rev den (1975); N. W. 1979Had plaintiff’s request for a variance been granted by the Common Council, the Dahls, in order to confer jurisdiction on the reviewing court in a writ of review proceeding, would have had to serve plaintiff as an "opposite party.” See Maizels v. Kozer, 129 Or 100 , 276 P 277 (1929); Williams v. Henry, 70 Or 466 , 142 P 377 (1914); Thompson v. Columbia County Comm’rs, 29 Or App 813 , 564 P2d 1376 (1977); Shanks v. Washington County, 22 Or App 426 , 539 P2d 1111 , rev den (1975); N. W. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Thompson v. BD. OF CTY. COM'RS OF COLUMBIA
green
2 sentences1979Had plaintiff’s request for a variance been granted by the Common Council, the Dahls, in order to confer jurisdiction on the reviewing court in a writ of review proceeding, would have had to serve plaintiff as an "opposite party.” See Maizels v. Kozer, 129 Or 100 , 276 P 277 (1929); Williams v. Henry, 70 Or 466 , 142 P 377 (1914); Thompson v. Columbia County Comm’rs, 29 Or App 813 , 564 P2d 1376 (1977); Shanks v. Washington County, 22 Or App 426 , 539 P2d 1111 , rev den (1975); N. W. 1979Had plaintiff’s request for a variance been granted by the Common Council, the Dahls, in order to confer jurisdiction on the reviewing court in a writ of review proceeding, would have had to serve plaintiff as an "opposite party.” See Maizels v. Kozer, 129 Or 100 , 276 P 277 (1929); Williams v. Henry, 70 Or 466 , 142 P 377 (1914); Thompson v. Columbia County Comm’rs, 29 Or App 813 , 564 P2d 1376 (1977); Shanks v. Washington County, 22 Or App 426 , 539 P2d 1111 , rev den (1975); N. W. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Williams v. Henry
green
1 sentence1979Had plaintiff’s request for a variance been granted by the Common Council, the Dahls, in order to confer jurisdiction on the reviewing court in a writ of review proceeding, would have had to serve plaintiff as an "opposite party.” See Maizels v. Kozer, 129 Or 100 , 276 P 277 (1929); Williams v. Henry, 70 Or 466 , 142 P 377 (1914); Thompson v. Columbia County Comm’rs, 29 Or App 813 , 564 P2d 1376 (1977); Shanks v. Washington County, 22 Or App 426 , 539 P2d 1111 , rev den (1975); N. W. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Maizels v. Kozer
neutral
2 sentences1979Had plaintiff’s request for a variance been granted by the Common Council, the Dahls, in order to confer jurisdiction on the reviewing court in a writ of review proceeding, would have had to serve plaintiff as an "opposite party.” See Maizels v. Kozer, 129 Or 100 , 276 P 277 (1929); Williams v. Henry, 70 Or 466 , 142 P 377 (1914); Thompson v. Columbia County Comm’rs, 29 Or App 813 , 564 P2d 1376 (1977); Shanks v. Washington County, 22 Or App 426 , 539 P2d 1111 , rev den (1975); N. W. 1979Had plaintiff’s request for a variance been granted by the Common Council, the Dahls, in order to confer jurisdiction on the reviewing court in a writ of review proceeding, would have had to serve plaintiff as an "opposite party.” See Maizels v. Kozer, 129 Or 100 , 276 P 277 (1929); Williams v. Henry, 70 Or 466 , 142 P 377 (1914); Thompson v. Columbia County Comm’rs, 29 Or App 813 , 564 P2d 1376 (1977); Shanks v. Washington County, 22 Or App 426 , 539 P2d 1111 , rev den (1975); N. W. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.