Log In
  • India
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries
  • Judgments

Oregon Case Commentaries

“The Registered-Owner Inference Rule” – A New Article I, § 9 Benchmark after State v. Betancourt (2025)

“The Registered-Owner Inference Rule” – A New Article I, § 9 Benchmark after State v. Betancourt (2025)

Date: Jul 22, 2025
“The Registered-Owner Inference Rule” – A New Article I, § 9 Benchmark after State v. Betancourt (2025) 1. Introduction The Supreme Court of Oregon’s en banc decision in State v. Betancourt, 374 Or...
Expanding Judicial Discretion in Presentence Incarceration Credits: State ex rel Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion (373 Or 816)

Expanding Judicial Discretion in Presentence Incarceration Credits: State ex rel Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion (373 Or 816)

Date: Jul 11, 2025
Expanding Judicial Discretion in Presentence Incarceration Credits: State ex rel Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion (373 Or 816) Introduction On 10 July 2025 the Oregon Supreme Court, sitting en banc, delivered...
“Dwelling” for Home-Occupation Permits Must Independently Qualify as an Allowed Category of Dwelling in the Zone – Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County (373 Or 790)

“Dwelling” for Home-Occupation Permits Must Independently Qualify as an Allowed Category of Dwelling in the Zone – Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County (373 Or 790)

Date: Jul 5, 2025
“Dwelling” for Home-Occupation Permits Must Independently Qualify as an Allowed Category of Dwelling in the Zone – Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 373 Or 790 (2025) 1. Introduction In...
Crosbie v. Asante: Remand-Scope Orders Are Not Immediately Appealable under ORS 19.205(3)

Crosbie v. Asante: Remand-Scope Orders Are Not Immediately Appealable under ORS 19.205(3)

Date: Jun 30, 2025
Crosbie v. Asante: Remand-Scope Orders Are Not Immediately Appealable under ORS 19.205(3) 1. Introduction In Crosbie v. Asante, 373 Or 773 (2025), the Oregon Supreme Court confronted a recurring...
The Burton Rule: Defense Counsel’s Latitude to Emphasize the Absence of Testimony in Closing Argument

The Burton Rule: Defense Counsel’s Latitude to Emphasize the Absence of Testimony in Closing Argument

Date: Jun 30, 2025
The Burton Rule: Defense Counsel’s Latitude to Emphasize the Absence of Testimony in Closing Argument Introduction In State v. Burton, 373 Or 750 (2025), the Oregon Supreme Court clarified the...
State v. Worsham: Plain-Error Limits on Unrequested Supplemental Jury Instructions

State v. Worsham: Plain-Error Limits on Unrequested Supplemental Jury Instructions

Date: Jun 30, 2025
State v. Worsham (373 Or 739, 2025): Plain-Error Limits on Unrequested Supplemental Jury Instructions Introduction State v. Worsham presented the Supreme Court of Oregon with a deceptively narrow...
Stipulating ‘Court May Impose’ Consecutive Sentences: Resolving Ambiguities in Oregon Plea Agreements

Stipulating ‘Court May Impose’ Consecutive Sentences: Resolving Ambiguities in Oregon Plea Agreements

Date: Jun 10, 2025
Stipulating ‘Court May Impose’ Consecutive Sentences: Resolving Ambiguities in Oregon Plea Agreements Introduction In State of Oregon v. James Clare Walsh IV (373 Or 712, June 5, 2025), the Oregon...
“The Walsh Protocol”: Judicial Duties When a Plea Agreement Is Ambiguous at Sentencing

“The Walsh Protocol”: Judicial Duties When a Plea Agreement Is Ambiguous at Sentencing

Date: Jun 4, 2025
“The Walsh Protocol”: Judicial Duties When a Plea Agreement Is Ambiguous at Sentencing Introduction State v. Walsh, 373 Or 714 (2025), confronts a recurring but seldom-resolved problem: what must a...
Tenant’s Statutory Right to Cure Violations under ORS 90.392: Mandatory Notice Requirement

Tenant’s Statutory Right to Cure Violations under ORS 90.392: Mandatory Notice Requirement

Date: May 16, 2025
Tenant’s Statutory Right to Cure Violations under ORS 90.392: Mandatory Notice Requirement Introduction KKMH Properties, LLC v. Shire, 373 Or 676 (2025), is a residential eviction case decided by the...
Plain-Error Review of Prosecutorial Jury Argument: Clarifying the Chitwood Framework in State v. Perez

Plain-Error Review of Prosecutorial Jury Argument: Clarifying the Chitwood Framework in State v. Perez

Date: May 2, 2025
Plain-Error Review of Prosecutorial Jury Argument: Clarifying the Chitwood Framework in State v. Perez Introduction State v. Perez, 373 Or 591 (2025), is the Oregon Supreme Court’s latest guidance on...
Limitation of the Article I, Section 11 Right to Counsel to Formal Charges: Precharging Interrogation Excluded—State v. Kilby

Limitation of the Article I, Section 11 Right to Counsel to Formal Charges: Precharging Interrogation Excluded—State v. Kilby

Date: May 2, 2025
Limitation of the Article I, Section 11 Right to Counsel to Formal Charges: Precharging Interrogation Excluded—State v. Kilby Introduction In State of Oregon v. Randall Richard Kilby (373 Or 557, May...
Expanding “Wrongful Taking” under ORS 124.110(1)(a): Improper Motive, Improper Means and Elder Abuse Liability

Expanding “Wrongful Taking” under ORS 124.110(1)(a): Improper Motive, Improper Means and Elder Abuse Liability

Date: May 2, 2025
Expanding “Wrongful Taking” under ORS 124.110(1)(a): Improper Motive, Improper Means and Elder Abuse Liability 1. Introduction Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLC, 373 Or 621 (2025), arises from a...
State v. Lee: Statutory Prohibition of Anticipatory Warrants Under ORS 133.545(6)

State v. Lee: Statutory Prohibition of Anticipatory Warrants Under ORS 133.545(6)

Date: Apr 25, 2025
State v. Lee: Statutory Prohibition of Anticipatory Warrants Under ORS 133.545(6) Introduction In State v. Lee, 373 Or 555 (2025), the Supreme Court of Oregon considered whether Oregon’s statutory...
State v. Akins: Permitting Delayed-Disclosure Expert Testimony and Child-Declarant Hearsay Exception under OEC 803(18a)(b)

State v. Akins: Permitting Delayed-Disclosure Expert Testimony and Child-Declarant Hearsay Exception under OEC 803(18a)(b)

Date: Apr 18, 2025
State v. Akins: Permitting Delayed-Disclosure Expert Testimony and Child-Declarant Hearsay Exception under OEC 803(18a)(b) Introduction State v. Akins, 373 Or 506 (2025), is a decision of the Supreme...
Tortious Basis Required for “Accident” Under CGL Policies: Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Co.

Tortious Basis Required for “Accident” Under CGL Policies: Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Co.

Date: Apr 18, 2025
Tortious Basis Required for “Accident” Under CGL Policies: Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Co. Introduction Twigg v. Admiral Insurance Company is a 2025 decision of the Supreme Court of Oregon that...
Community Workforce Agreements as “Rules”: ODOT Must Follow Oregon APA Notice-and-Comment Procedures

Community Workforce Agreements as “Rules”: ODOT Must Follow Oregon APA Notice-and-Comment Procedures

Date: Apr 11, 2025
Community Workforce Agreements as “Rules”: ODOT Must Follow Oregon APA Notice-and-Comment Procedures Introduction This case, Oregon-Columbia Chapter AGC of America v. Department of Transportation...
Ensuring Valid Waiver of Right to Counsel: New Remand Standard in State v. Cotter

Ensuring Valid Waiver of Right to Counsel: New Remand Standard in State v. Cotter

Date: Apr 11, 2025
Ensuring Valid Waiver of Right to Counsel: New Remand Standard in State v. Cotter Introduction State v. Cotter, 373 Or 381 (2025), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Oregon concerning a...
Clarifying the Contribution Bar under ORS 465.480(4)(a): Settlement of the Same Environmental Claim Required to Extinguish Contribution Rights

Clarifying the Contribution Bar under ORS 465.480(4)(a): Settlement of the Same Environmental Claim Required to Extinguish Contribution Rights

Date: Apr 11, 2025
Clarifying the Contribution Bar under ORS 465.480(4)(a): Settlement of the Same Environmental Claim Required to Extinguish Contribution Rights Introduction Continental Casualty Co. v. Argonaut Ins....
Director-Approved Language Determines Insurers’ Compliance with ORS 746.290(2)

Director-Approved Language Determines Insurers’ Compliance with ORS 746.290(2)

Date: Apr 4, 2025
Director-Approved Language Determines Insurers’ Compliance with ORS 746.290(2) 1. Introduction This commentary examines the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in Bellshaw v. Farmers Insurance Company of...
Premium-Price and Illegal-Product UTPA Theories Free from Reliance Requirement – Bohr v. Tillamook County Creamery

Premium-Price and Illegal-Product UTPA Theories Free from Reliance Requirement – Bohr v. Tillamook County Creamery

Date: Apr 4, 2025
Premium-Price and Illegal-Product UTPA Theories Free from Reliance Requirement – Bohr v. Tillamook County Creamery Introduction In Bohr v. Tillamook County Creamery Assn., 373 Or 343 (2025), the...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert