Case law

Whipple v. Howser

291 Or. 475 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 11, 1981

As one student of the subject wrote long ago: "There is no such thing as a law that does not extinguish rights, powers, privileges, or immunities acquired under previously existing laws. That is what laws are for. … Lowery clearly reaffirms the rules of construction and the substantive/procedural distinction which inheres in those rules.

Fairbrother v. Rinker

274 Or. 525 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1976

All of these cases involved the measure of damages for injury to property, and the reference to what was just to compel the defendant to pay clearly related to the manner of measuring a monetary loss when personal property … , but is a decision which will add further confusion to the law on this subject in that it makes no reference to our previous decisions, as cited above, and leaves it unclear whether some or all of them have been either qualified

McKee v. Foster

219 Or. 322 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1959

Very likely, a mere light flashing in the machine or other mechanical indication of a high score would be enough to qualify as a “credit, or other representative of value or evidence of winning” capable of redemption or exchange … Coats recognized that the term “lottery” has no technical or established legal meaning. They held that the essential elements of a lottery are prize, chance and consideration.

Teitelman v. SAIF

374 Or. 271 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 25, 2025

But that “temporal relationship” is not as clearly defined as SAIF suggests. … The majority does not identify any legislative history that clearly suggests a dif- ferent understanding.

State v. Tourtillot

289 Or. 845 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1980

The checkpoint was established on the first weekend of hunting season. … If the commission fails to submit sufficient qualified nominees for such positions, the Department of State Police shall make its own selections.”

State v. Jordan

146 Or. 504 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1933

The procedure to be followed by trial courts was clearly stated by Mr. Justice Harris in a concurring opinion in State v. … The object and purpose of the rule is clearly stated in State v. Laundy, 103 Or. 443 ( 204 P. 958 , 206 P. 290 ).

Shainwald v. City of Portland

153 Or. 167 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1936

The primary or first purpose of the plans and specifications to be submitted to the electors is clearly for their information. … Thus far in the proceedings for the holding of the election and voting for the establishment of the sewage disposal system, we think there was a substantial compliance with the statute.

Anthony v. Veatch

189 Or. 462 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1950

It is well established that there is no necessary conflict between those rights. Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240, 262 , 35 L. ed. 159, 11 Sup. Ct. 559. … In our opinion, the act does not, in the respect mentioned, grant to one class of citizens any privilege *488 or immunity which, upon the same terms, does not equally belong to all citizens.

City of Salem v. Oregon-Washington Water Service Co.

144 Or. 93 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1933

Somehow he increased the flow of water and thereupon the defendant asserted a right to some of it, and instituted a suit to establish his claim. … We are clearly satisfied that the circuit court did not err when it sustained the demurrer of Hurd and D’Arcy.

State v. Haugen

349 Or. 174 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2010

. *182 ORS 45.275 provides, in part: “The court shall appoint a qualified interpreter in a civil or criminal proceeding, and a hearing officer or the desig-nee of a hearing officer shall appoint a qualified interpreter in … “unless qualified interpreters are available to provide assistance.”

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Yacob

318 Or. 10 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1993

The third person was needed in order to qualify to receive the nephew’s disability checks directly from the social security agency, relieving the client of that responsibility. … The mitigating factor of remorse is not established here.

League of Oregon Cities v. State

334 Or. 645 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 4, 2002

Under those circumstances, plaintiffs’ 18 challenge to Measure 7 is not premature, because the ultimate, official result clearly can be forecasted. See Brown v. … In other words, subsection (c) permits the state and local governments not to pay a claim that otherwise would qualify under subsection (a), if that claim is made in response to a regulation that forbids using the subject

Department of Human Services v. G. D. W.

353 Or. 25 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2012

In that 9 sense, the state's position is adverse to the child, and evidence presented by 10 the state to establish jurisdiction is offered 'against' the child. … the state always may attempt to offer a child's out-of-court statement about "an act of abuse" under OEC 803(18a)(b) -- although it must then also make a reliability showing that is not required when a statement qualifies

Witham v. Witham

156 Or. 59 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1937

Witham was named as executrix therein and letters testamentary were issued to her and she duly qualified as such executrix. … The intention of the testator to incorporate into a will a paper or document must clearly appear from the will, a mere reference thereto without evidence of such intention being insufficient.

Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union

103 Or. 514 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1921

Those cases, however, do not purport to establish limitations upon the application of the rule for all cases. 11. Plaintiff’s complaint, however, may be sustained upon other grounds. … These authorities fully sustain tbe result reached in tbe original opinion as to tbe sufficiency of tbe complaint, and at tbe same time qualify and explain tbe sense in which it was intended to use tbe phrase “power coupled

Khalaf v. Dept. of Rev.

368 Or. 563 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 30, 2021

Inventory, the court explained, does not qualify for a depreciation deduction. Whether an asset is inventory is a factual question on which taxpayer had the burden of proof. … He did not offer any evidence to show that they, in fact, qualified as “business associates.” See 26 CFR § 1.274-2(b)(2)(iii) (defining term).

State v. Smith

43 Or. 109 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1903

It will be observed that the word “danger” is not qualified by the word “imminent.” In United States v. Outerbridge, Fed. Cas. No. 15,978, Mr. … The statement in the third refused instruction that defendant was not required to wait until put in imminent danger is clearly erroneous.

Clark v. Jackson County

313 Or. 508 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1994

LUBA determined that the tracts involved did not qualify for permits as “existing legal lots of record,” as that term was used in the county ordinance, and the county disagreed. … Further, the legislature since has established ancillary regulation of some surface mining in ORS 517.750 to 517.900; Jackson County regulates additionally in LDO 272.050.

State v. Running

336 Or. 545 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 8, 2004

If defendant is correct, the state argues, then any defendant the court sentences both to death and to life without the possibility of parole is immune from the death sentence. … The source lists are the [DMV] files and the most recent electors [ — defined by ORS 247.002 as ‘individual[s] qualified to vote under section 2, Article II, Oregon Constitution’ — ] of the county.

State v. Perez

373 Or. 591 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 1, 2025

On direct examination, defendant testified that he did not clearly remember the incident at Fred Meyer because he had been “alcoholically intoxicated.” … CONCLUSION Defendant has not established plain error in his case. To establish “plain” error, a defendant must satisfy all the requirements of plain error.