123 Or. App. 424 - Mitchell v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
January 1996
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"First, if the plaintiff used one of the methods described in ORCP 7, then service is presumed to have been reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of the action and to afford her a reasonable opportunity to appear and defend. Second, if the defendant rebuts that presumption, or if the plaintiff did not use one of the methods described in the rule, then the court must determine whether service, nevertheless, was adequate, because it satisfied the `reasonable notice' standard set forth in ORCP 7D(1)." Mitchell v. Harris, 123 Or.App. 424, 427 , 859 P.2d 1196 (1993); see also Levens v. Koser, 126 Or.App. 399, 401-02 , 869 P.2d 344 (1994).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.