Mullens v. L. Q. Development, Oregon Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• “because the appellant is asserting appellate jurisdiction, the appellant must allege and prove timely service”
• party may rely on certificate of mailing to prove timeliness of mailing
• illustrating application of that principle

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• McCall v. Kulongoski
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2005-08-18· cited 15×
• Burden v. Copco Refrigeration, Inc.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2005-09-29· cited 10×
• In re the Marriage of Bridge
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2000-04-12· cited 5×
• Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. State
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-10-22· cited 4×
• Murrieta v. Brewster
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1999-04-29· cited 3×
• McKinney v. McKinney
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2005-10-05· cited 3×
• Burden v. Copco Refrigeration, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2004-05-12· cited 2×
• Bova v. City of Medford
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-07-21
• Gaussoin v. Port of Portland
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1996-10-30

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Ball v. Gladden
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1968-07-17· cited 849×
• State v. Carlson
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1991-03-21· cited 127×
• State Ex Rel. Sweere v. Crookham
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1980-04-08· cited 39×
• State v. Carrillo
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1991-01-17· cited 20×

Other cases named Mullens v. L. Q. Development, Oregon Ltd.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Mullens v. L. Q. Development, Oregon Ltd.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1989-05-10· cited 1×