170 Or. App. 721 - Checkley v. Boyd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 district · 8 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Restatement takes the position that “[o]ne who takes an active part in the initiation, continuation or procurement of civil proceedings against another” may be liable. (Emphasis added.) Although the issue is one of first impression in Oregon, it is not one on which we lack significant guidance. The Oregon Supreme Court has adopted the “active participant” rule with respect to the related tort of malicious prosecution. Rogers v. Hill, 281 Or. 491, 499-500 , 576 P.2d 328 (1978) (officer who filed reports on which prosecution based was potentially liable as “active participant”). In doing so, the court recognized that the requirement that the defendant be the party who initiates the underlying criminal proceeding is merely a way to describe the causation element of the tort. Id. at 499 , 576 P.2d 328 . See also Waldner v. Dow, 128 Or.App. 197, 200-01 , 876 P.2d 785 (1994). In other words, that element concerns the person who serves as the impetus of the prosecution, and therefore it is not limited to the party that formally brings the action.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Westwood v. City of Hermiston

2. “a defendant's publication of a defamatory or otherwise significantly stigmatizing statement, knowing the statement to be false, unfounded, or unsubstantiated, is conduct that, if found to be true by a factfinder, constitutes an extraordinary transgression of what is socially tolerable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 218 Or. App. 348 - House v. Hicks