Case law

State v. Monaco

375 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 12, 2026

In that regard, we noted that the detectives “did not make any promise of immunity” and had explained that the defendant would be charged with murder no matter what he said. Id. at 32. … The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion “shows clearly” that the construction given the statute was consistent with prior Ohio law and the statute’s legislative history. Id.

Oregon State Police Officers' Ass'n v. State

323 Or. 356 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1996

Accordingly, because the plaintiff qualified under that plan when she first went to work, she was entitled to be included in the original plan. … The statutory pension system and the relationship between the state and its employees clearly established a contractual obligation to provide an undiminished level of benefits at a fixed cost.

Tye v. McFetridge

342 Or. 61 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 14, 2006

DCBS established that method in OAR 436-060-0025. … The second and third sentences clearly differentiate treatment according to the length and continuity of the worker’s employment.

Mogul Transportation Co. v. Larison

181 Or. 252 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 1947

Maximum prices established by the Federal Price Administrator are published in the Federal Register, the contents of which are required by the federal statute to be judicially noticed by the courts. 44 U. S. C. … On the contrary, *265 such qualified refusal was reasonable and justifiable. 6 Am. Jur., Bailments, section 169; Anno. 43 A. L. R., at pp. 172, 173. It would be intolerable if the law were otherwise.

Brusco Towboat Co. v. State Ex Rel. State Land Board

284 Or. 627 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1978

It is our belief that the state has failed to establish that the defendants are committing any wrong upon the locus in quo which entitles it to the relief which it seeks. … The fact that plaintiffs’ business activities, or some of them, are dependent upon navigation does not immunize them from such a charge.

West v. Kozer

104 Or. 94 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1922

This may be qualified by the statement that if that which is valid and that which is invalid are so inseparably united that neither can stand alone, the whole act must *105 perish. … The lawmakers clearly intended to include casualties of whatever kind wherever happening to workmen coming within the purview of the act.

Schoenheit/Unger v. Rosenblum

Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2015

The agency shall be considered established if the majority of votes favor the establishment. … (b) Does not impair the rights and immunities provided under ORS 30.930 to 30. 947. SECTION 10.

Wyers v. American Medical Response Northwest, Inc.

360 Or. 211 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 11, 2016

In contrast to the first mental state requirement, then, the second one clearly refers to constructive awareness of a particular fact— another person’s physical or financial abuse—not awareness of the defendant’s own conduct … AMR does not dispute that each of the six plaintiffs qualified as a “vulnerable person” within the meaning of ORS 124.100(1)(e). 5  As we note later in this opinion, the evidence in the record is sufficient to permit

In Re Legislative Apportionment

228 Or. 562 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1961

The constitution clearly demands that "the number of senators and representatives for each county or district shall be determined by dividing the total population of such county or district by such respective ratios," (i.e … NOTES [1] Original jurisdiction is conferred upon this court by virtue of Article IV, § 6 (2) (a), which reads as follows: "Original jurisdiction hereby is vested in the Supreme Court upon the petition of any qualified elector

State of Oregon v. Kuhnhausen

201 Or. 478 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1954

In my opinion the present majority holding clearly demonstrates such misunderstanding and confusion. … Lee, supra, but it immediately qualified it.

State Land Board v. Kolovrat

220 Or. 448 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1960

This thought is clearly affirmed by Article I of that agreement, wherein its controlling purposes and objectives are stated. … The contrary is clearly evident from a reading of the entire agreement.

Northwestern National Insurance v. Averill

149 Or. 672 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1935

A conclusion is clearly warranted that the present notice of appeal is not invalid merely on account of the fact that a nonresident attorney signed it. … Without reviewing our recent decisions at greater length, it suffices to state that they clearly indicate that Oliver v. Harvey and Wolf v.

Gollersrud v. LPMC, LLC

Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2023

LPMC, LLC was sufficient to establish points one and two. … “Though an employer may have a comparatively broad right to monitor the email messages flowing through its systems, they are not the only party with a qualified right to do so.”

State v. Illig-Renn

341 Or. 228 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 24, 2006

The state sought review of the Court of Appeals decisions in Illig-Renn III and Illig-Renn IV, arguing that this court’s cases clearly establish that only statutes that expressly proscribe expression are subject to facial … Robertson * * * this court established a framework for evaluating whether a law violates Article I, section 8.

State v. Humphrey

63 Or. 540 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1912

To meet such conditions, the law has been established in this State as noted in the provisions of the Code to which allusion has been made. … He may also give evidence aliunde tending to establish his innocence of the crime charged or to overcome the evidence given against him by the prosecution.

State v. Phillips

367 Or. 594 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 4, 2021

‘[w]hatever the logic may be of arguing that no evidence should be received con- cerning conviction of a crime which would not by its nature be thought of as a basis for questioning credibility, the rule is nonetheless clearly … established’ ” (quoting State v.

Bernard v. First National Bank of Oregon

275 Or. 145 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1976

In cases involving claims of money damages all litigation presumes a desire on the part of the judicial establishment to make the wrongdoer pay for the wrongs he has committed, but to do this by applying settled or clearly … Several provisions of our statute clearly indicate to the contrary.

Gollersrud v. LPMC, LLC

Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2023

LPMC, LLC was sufficient to establish points one and two. … “Though an employer may have a comparatively broad right to monitor the email messages flowing through its systems, they are not the only party with a qualified right to do so.”

State of Oregon v. Cahill

208 Or. 538 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1956

Neither he nor we can now immunize him from liability on the theory that the money was delivered to him with the understanding that he might use it for personal expenses as a debtor of the District. … Stanley MacDonald, an experienced and highly qualified expert, testified, in part, as follows: “The Witness: My conclusion that the signature John D.

Computer Concepts, Inc. v. Brandt

310 Or. 706 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1990

Kross, supra, however, this court took the view that a one-on-one arrangement could qualify as a security. … Often a RICO action will be brought before continuity can be established in this way.