State v. Walker, 333 P.3d 316 (Or. 2014). “See also ORS 166.735(2) (provisions of ORICO “shall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes”).”
Comput. Concepts, Inc. v. Brandt, 801 P.2d 800 (Or. 1990). · cites it 2דDuring the 1981 hearings on the ORICO bill, witnesses testified that civil cases could be useful in developing evidence for possible criminal prosecutions to follow. Minutes, Joint Committee on Organized Crime, April 23, 1981, pp 12-14.”
Black v. Arizala, 48 P.3d 843 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2ד715 to ORS 166.735. Plaintiffs invested in PCS by purchasing limited partnership interests.”
Am. Fed'n of Teachers-Oregon v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 145 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2ד" ORS 166.735(2). In that light, an intuitive question arises: why is the Secretary of State not just another victim of defendants' fraud? It therefore follows that the legislature would not have intended the Secretary of State's action in certifying the initiative petition…”
Kotera v. Daioh Int'l U.S.A. Corp., 40 P.3d 506 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “715 through ORS 166.735 (1993), 1 and various acts of misconduct associated with a real estate transaction in Japan.”
Loewen v. Galligan, 882 P.2d 104 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “715 to ORS 166.735 (ORICO). ORCP 21 A(8). They also appeal from a summary judgment on their third amended complaint, which alleged claims for securities fraud, common law fraud and breach of contract.”
Willms v. AmeriTitle, Inc., 499 P.3d 79 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “From those points, we can reject defendant’s con- tention that a “pattern of racketeering activity” cannot con- sist of two or more different incidents of racketeering activ- ity taking place in connection with a single escrow file that resulted in damage to two victims—e.”
Comput. Concepts, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan v. Brandt, 780 P.2d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2ד715 to ORS 166.735 (ORICO). Plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment on the Oregon securities law claims and the dismissal of the ORICO claim.”
Ainslie v. First Interstate Bank, 939 P.2d 125 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “715 to ORS 166.735. The action arose out of First Interstate’s handling of funds that it held in escrow in connection with a securities offering in which plaintiffs were investors.”
Comput. Concepts, Inc. v. Brandt, 918 P.2d 430 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2ד115(2), which, at the time the appeal began and during most of the period it proceeded, provided in part that the "purchaser may recover * * * costs and reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal.”
State ex rel. Reid v. Frohnmayer, 763 P.2d 733 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “715 to ORS 166.735 (ORICO), violated that act. Their principal disenchantment is that the settlement gives preference to certain claims, including defendant’s litigation fees and expenses, over plaintiffs’ claims for compensation from the settlement fund.”
State v. Walker, 333 P.3d 316 (Or. 2014). “See also ORS 166.735(2) (provisions of ORICO “shall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes”).”
Comput. Concepts, Inc. v. Brandt, 801 P.2d 800 (Or. 1990). “During the 1981 hearings on the ORICO bill, witnesses testified that civil cases could be useful in developing evidence for possible criminal prosecutions to follow. Minutes, Joint Committee on Organized Crime, April 23, 1981, pp 12-14.”
Am. Fed'n of Teachers-Oregon v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 145 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “" ORS 166.735(2). In that light, an intuitive question arises: why is the Secretary of State not just another victim of defendants' fraud? It therefore follows that the legislature would not have intended the Secretary of State's action in certifying the initiative petition…”
Willms v. AmeriTitle, Inc., 499 P.3d 79 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “From those points, we can reject defendant’s con- tention that a “pattern of racketeering activity” cannot con- sist of two or more different incidents of racketeering activ- ity taking place in connection with a single escrow file that resulted in damage to two victims—e.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.