Boyd v. Boyd

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that service on the defendant’s bookkeeper satisfied the reasonable notice requirement because the business arrangement implied that the defendant would have regular, frequent, and predicable contacts with the bookkeeper

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Hoeck v. Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1997-09-10· cited 25×
• Yen Linh Thi Pham v. Faber
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1998-02-25· cited 10×
• Abbotts v. Bacon
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1995-03-08· cited 9×
• Stull v. Hoke
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1998-04-01· cited 6×
• Willamette River I v. Boespflug
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-06-30· cited 5×
• Williams v. Jett
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2002-09-25· cited 2×
• Jensen v. Smith
  Court of Appeals of Utah· 2007-05-03· cited 1×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1993-10-19· cited 2,400×
• Baker v. Foy
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1990-08-16· cited 59×
• Lake Oswego Review, Inc. v. Steinkamp
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1985-02-12· cited 32×
• Duber v. Zeitler
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1993-03-17· cited 16×
• In re Marriage of Henry
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1986-06-03· cited 15×
• Levens v. Koser
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1994-02-16· cited 13×
• Luyet v. Ehrnfelt
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1993-03-17· cited 12×
• Gallogly v. Calhoon
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1994-02-16· cited 10×
• Atterbury v. Wells
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1994-01-05· cited 8×