6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2012A. Income approach “The income method of valuation relies on the assumption that a willing investor will purchase a property for an amount that reflects the future income stream it produces.” Allen, 17 OTR at 253 (citations omitted). 2012A. Income approach “The income method of valuation relies on the assumption that a willing investor will purchase a property for an amount that reflects the future income stream it produces.” Allen, 17 OTR at 253 (citation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Olsongreen2 sentences1989See also State v. Olson, 88 Or App 271 , 744 P2d 1327 (1987). 1989See also State v. Olson, 88 Or. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia
green
1 sentence2021Beam Distilling Co. and Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 US 263 , 104 S Ct 3049 , 82 L Ed 2d 200 (1984): “When this Court does not ‘reserve the question whether its holding should be applied to the parties before it,’ however, an opinion announcing a rule of federal law ‘is properly understood to have followed the normal rule of ret- roactive application’ and must be ‘read to hold . . . that its rule should apply retroactively to the litigants then before the Court.’ ” Harper, 509 US at 97 -98 (quoting Beam, 501 US at 539 ) (ellipsis in original; emphasis added). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation
green
1 sentence2021Beam Distilling Co. and Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 US 263 , 104 S Ct 3049 , 82 L Ed 2d 200 (1984): “When this Court does not ‘reserve the question whether its holding should be applied to the parties before it,’ however, an opinion announcing a rule of federal law ‘is properly understood to have followed the normal rule of ret- roactive application’ and must be ‘read to hold . . . that its rule should apply retroactively to the litigants then before the Court.’ ” Harper, 509 US at 97 -98 (quoting Beam, 501 US at 539 ) (ellipsis in original; emphasis added). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias
green
2 sentences2021Beam Distilling Co. and Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 US 263 , 104 S Ct 3049 , 82 L Ed 2d 200 (1984): “When this Court does not ‘reserve the question whether its holding should be applied to the parties before it,’ however, an opinion announcing a rule of federal law ‘is properly understood to have followed the normal rule of ret- roactive application’ and must be ‘read to hold . . . that its rule should apply retroactively to the litigants then before the Court.’ ” Harper, 509 US at 97 -98 (quoting Beam, 501 US at 539 ) (ellipsis in original; emphasis added). 2021Beam Distilling Co. and Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 US 263 , 104 S Ct 3049 , 82 L Ed 2d 200 (1984): “When this Court does not ‘reserve the question whether its holding should be applied to the parties before it,’ however, an opinion announcing a rule of federal law ‘is properly understood to have followed the normal rule of ret- roactive application’ and must be ‘read to hold . . . that its rule should apply retroactively to the litigants then before the Court.’ ” Harper, 509 US at 97 -98 (quoting Beam, 501 US at 539 ) (ellipsis in original; emphasis added). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Moran v. Weldon
green
2 sentences2003That means that the court must find by a preponderance of the evidence either that the parent cannot or will not provide adequate *1166 love and care or that the children will face an undue risk of physical or psychological harm in the parent's custody. " (Emphasis added.) See also Moran v. Weldon, 184 Or.App. 269, 274-75 , 57 P.3d 898 (2002) (stating that, under the rule derived from Troxel, "there must be proof that the biological parent cannot or will not provide adequate love and care for the child or that the child will be at an undue risk of harm in the parent's custody" (emphasis added) 2003That means that the court must find by a preponderance of the evidence either that the parent cannot or will not provide adequate *1166 love and care or that the children will face an undue risk of physical or psychological harm in the parent's custody. " (Emphasis added.) See also Moran v. Weldon, 184 Or.App. 269, 274-75 , 57 P.3d 898 (2002) (stating that, under the rule derived from Troxel, "there must be proof that the biological parent cannot or will not provide adequate love and care for the child or that the child will be at an undue risk of harm in the parent's custody" (emphasis added) | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.
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.