Lane v. Brown

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that the plaintiffs had failed to preserve for appellate consideration the argument “that the emergency instruction is redundant and confusing and should be abolished”
• “An exception on one ground does not preserve the error on another ground.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Jett v. Ford Motor Company
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2004-02-11· cited 11×
• Bjorndal v. Weitman
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2008-05-08· cited 4×
• Ryerse v. Haddock
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2003-01-08· cited 4×
• Cestaro v. State Ex Rel. Department of State Police
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-06-10· cited 3×
• Bjorndal v. Weitman
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2007-04-11· cited 1×
• Baker v. Infratech Corp.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2001-06-06

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Brown v. J. C. Penney Co.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1984-09-05· cited 187×
• Beecher v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1973-12-31· cited 28×
• Weitzel v. Wingard
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1976-02-12· cited 16×
• Harkins v. Doyle
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1975-04-10· cited 14×
• Swanson v. Hale
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1975-09-18· cited 9×
• Durnford v. Worden
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1966-02-09· cited 7×
• Transpacific Leasing, Inc. v. Klineline Sand & Gravel Co.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1975-05-30· cited 6×
• Lane v. Brown
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1995-11-22· cited 4×