Case law

Voyt v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co.

169 Or. 30 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1941

S.) 818 (1911), appears to qualify the right of a carrier to limit his liability as an insurer by holding that the contract to that end should be express, reasonable and just. The case is important by analogy. … The court clearly stated that this provision “would not exempt it (the warehouseman) from liability for leakage due to its fault, * * The provision of the receipt however “did exempt it from the duty of watching these casks

Wemme v. First Church of Christ

110 Or. 179 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1924

Clearly, this is not the contingency contemplated by the testator, upon the happening of which the churches were to have the power to change the particular charity for another. … For these reasons the decree of the lower court will be reversed and the cause will be remanded to that court with directions to appoint not less than three nor more than five competent and qualified trustees to take over

State Ex Rel. English v. Multnomah County

348 Or. 417 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2010

argued (1) that Measure 37 did not provide the exemption that the county claimed for procedural regulations and (2) that at least some of the regulations that the county had labeled as “health and safety regulations” did not qualify … Thus, even if the county were correct that the trial court exceeded its authority under Measure 37 by entering a judgment that unconditionally requires the payment of money, the trial court judgment would nonetheless be immune

State v. Hickman/Hickman

358 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 8, 2015

Mowry, 350 Or 686, 698, 261 P3d 1 (2011) (“We will not depart from established precedent simply because the ‘personal policy preference[s]’ of the members of the court may differ from those of our predecessors who decided … , 357 Or 460, 485-86, 355 P3d 866 (2015), we recently summarized three “categories” of errors that would warrant our reconsideration of constitu- tional decisions: (1) rulings that amount to dicta; (2) rulings that are “clearly

Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Utterback

173 Or. 572 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1944

Every employe mentioned in paragraph XIII above [this refers to the employes alleged to be material and necessary witnesses as above numerated] is properly qualified by training and experience for the work he is performing … The distinction between this case and the cases at bar is clearly drawn in the case of Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad *590 Co. v. Terte, supra.

Todd v. Occidental Life Insurance

208 Or. 634 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1956

"Indemnity shall only be paid under this Part for any period of disability during which the Insured is under the regular care and attendance of a legally qualified physician or surgeon other than himself." *637 and the policy … "Indemnity shall only be paid under this Part for any period of disability during which the Insured is under the regular care and attendance of a legally qualified physician or surgeon other than himself."

Knight v. Hamakar

40 Or. 424 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1901

Hamakar has been and now is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator de bonis non'oí said estate; that in pursuance of an order of said court, Hamakar on May 4, 1895, sold to L. T. … establishes a claim against said estate, and that until the order based thereon is set aside, modified, or reversed, the estate was indebted to Knight in the sum so specified.

Shepard Investment Group LLC v. Ormandy

371 Or. 285 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 20, 2023

But the trial court’s fac- tual findings establish that landlord violated ORS 90.315(4) in multiple ways, not merely by committing one violation that recurred monthly. … The majority inserts qualifiers into paragraph (f) of ORS 90.315(4) that do not appear in the text in at least two ways.

State v. Tucker

286 Or. 485 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1979

Once identity is satisfactorily established the offender should be cited and released unless grounds for further detention appear. … In the present case, defendant’s identity had not yet been satisfactorily established when the new information was received.

Williams v. Dale

139 Or. 105 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1932

His right to compensation was established when it appeared that he was somehow injured in an accident which arose "out of and in the course of his employment": Section 49-1814, Oregon Code 1930. … It was never the purpose of this statute to place exclusive liability upon the master for injuries to his employees arising out of and in the course of the employment, and thus to grant immunity and license to others who

Ankeny v. Blakley

44 Or. 78 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1903

He was qualified to testify on the subject, as he was managing Mrs. … The allegations of the complaint, therefore, are not established by the evidence, and the decree of the trial court in dismissing it was properly rendered. Affirmed.

State v. Tucker

315 Or. 321 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1993

In reaching this judgment, we establish no new principles of constitutional law. … He clearly preserved the claim of error under the rule of State v. Hitz, 307 Or. 183 , 766 P.2d 373 (1988). As occurred in State v.

Wetherell v. Douglas County

342 Or. 666 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 24, 2007

under which “profit” could be any “advantage” or “benefit,” because that definition would include a sentimental or psychological benefit to the ownership of land, which the statute, by using the words “profit in money,” clearly … Prior to that year, the statute qualified the “profit in money” requirement with a “gross income” clause that established a threshold of current commercial activity as part of its definition of “farm use.”

Mason/Turrill v. Rosenblum

369 Or. 656 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 29, 2022

A panel of three administrative law judges chosen by the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings would select 150 individuals from among the qualified applicants to form three sub-pools, with … The caption must be modified to more clearly convey that IP 34 would repeal and replace the legislature’s plan for the current decennium. 674 Mason/Turrill v.

Start v. Shell Oil Co.

202 Or. 99 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1954

A mere statement of the facts of that case reveals clearly a distinction from the present case. … A qualified witness for the plaintiff testified that the market value of Regal lily bulblets in the 1948-1949 season was $15 a thousand, and a qualified witness for the defendant testified that it was $10 to $15 a thousand

White v. Jubitz Corp.

347 Or. 212 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 15, 2009

Plaintiff was over 65 years old and, pursuant to the federal Social Security Act, qualified for Medicare benefits. 42 USC §§ 1395 - 1395hhh. … If plaintiff had not qualified for Medicare benefits, then he would have been liable for the entire amount that the providers had billed him.

White v. State Industrial Accident Commission

227 Or. 306 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 17, 1961

Both rules are well established and both have been employed by this court so many times that it is unnecessary to cite precedents. … The plaintiff challenges the act as violative of Oregon Constitution, Article I, § 20, which says: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen nor class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms

MacOmber v. State

181 Or. 208 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1947

Clearly that court acted within its jurisdiction. It had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and of the subject matter. … To proceed, otherwise is clearly error, if prejudicial reversible. Smalley v.

State v. Swain

147 Or. 207 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1934

In support of this contention, he argues that the indictment fails to disclose clearly whether the defendant is accused of selling stock owned by the corporation or by himself. … That is necessary to be established * * *.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Stauffer

327 Or. 44 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1998

The Bar has the burden of establishing misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. ORS 9.536(2); BR 5.2. … DR 4-101(0 provides that a lawyer may reveal confidences or secrets necessary to establish a claim or defense on behalf of a lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal