Case law

Jones v. Jackson

195 Or. 643 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1952

He held that plaintiffs had failed to establish title by adverse possession; that the evidence clearly indicated that plaintiffs Wiederhold and Mrs. … As it turned out, their evidence established their title more adequately than proof of adverse possession would have done.

State v. Willson

113 Or. 450 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1925

In the instant case no qualified witness had ever seen what could be called a foetus, and no one has said anywhere in the testimony that the child of which the woman was alleged to be pregnant is dead. … It is clearly not admissible on the theory that if a person will commit one offense, he will commit another.

School District 47 v. United States National Bank

187 Or. 360 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1949

It is therein further alleged that since the establishment of the St. … No such power ought to exist, and in our opinion no such power does legally exist, unless conferred by legislative enactment, either express or clearly implied. ’’ Since the word “warrant” has a definite and well-defined

State v. Hickman/Hickman

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 ‘per- sonal 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

State v. Weston

102 Or. 102 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1921

While it is generally defined as the body of a crime, it is more clearly expressed by calling it the body or thing which is the victim of a wrong. … But this is qualified and limited by the rule that the defendant’s confession taken alone, and without corroborating proof of the corpus delicti, is not sufficient to support a conviction: State v.

Wiggins v. Barrett & Associates, Inc.

295 Or. 679 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1983

One. of those promises was clearly within the statute but was not the promise sought to be enforced. … We have stated the elements necessary to establish apparent authority in Jones v.

State v. Lowry

295 Or. 337 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1983

Under Florance and Robinson/Gustafson, the seizure of such items would also clearly be lawful. … The United States Supreme Court has summarized very clearly in Arkansas v.

Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'n v. Pirie

150 Or. 435 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1935

These are cases where the rule is not qualified. … “Its ineffectiveness to encourage competitive bidding in these times of stress is clearly demonstrated by the record of sheriff’s sales on May 2d, above stated.

West Hills, Inc. v. State Tax Commission

255 Or. 172 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1970

This is an appeal by the State Tax Commission from a decision of the Oregon Tax Court (3 OTC Adv Sh 409), reversing in part the Commission’s order establishing the value of the taxpayer’s real property for tax purposes. … in 1963, four years before the assessment date”, consisting of a sale for $30,000 of 35 acres of undeveloped and unsubdivided property with an “access problem” and was located outside the city limits, *178 so as not to qualify

Derenco, Inc. v. Benj. Franklin Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

281 Or. 533 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1978

In addition, Congress had exempted the plaintiff from having to qualify to do business in any state and had given it state taxation immunity. 10 The court stated that payment of interest on the accounts did not impose a burden … However, the deposits in question here were not established for the convenience of the depositor, as is the usual case, but were established at the insistence of defendant for its protection and for a purpose which had nothing

State v. Huntley

302 Or. 418 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1986

These acts certainly qualify as dangerous behavior. In this case the crime of sodomy in the first degree was committed against an 11-year-old female victim, defendant’s niece. … Well, first of all, I think I have clearly indicated to you my feeling that you are dangerous, you are shown to be dangerous by your conduct.”

Carlson v. Myers

327 Or. 213 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1998

Former ORS 250.035(2) was clearly conditional, and this court interpreted it accordingly. In Rooney v. … This case illustrates clearly that the Attorney General and this court cannot always satisfy the competing policies in ORS 250.035 and ORS 250.085(5), as those statutes currently are written.

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.

Middlekauff v. Galloway

163 Or. 671 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1939

The opinion in that case was concerned only with the intention of the legislature found in the law as originally enacted, and cannot now be invoked as authority to override a different intention clearly manifested. … “Domicile in itself establishes a basis for taxation.” New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, supra; Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, supra; Maguire v. Trefry, supra; Ross v. McCabe, 166 Tenn. 314 , 61 S. W. (2d) 479 .

Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. City of Gresham

Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 2016

The utilities in this case all were operating without franchises, and the challenged fee qualified as a privilege tax. … Pursuant to those enactments, the city established a license fee of seven percent.

Jenkins v. Jenkins

171 Or. 629 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 4, 1943

In order to he sure, he employed a qualified surveyor and was told that his lines were accurate. … The form of the law which governs such a situation has become well defined and established through repeated judicial determinations.

State v. Kennedy

295 Or. 260 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1983

If the argument is only that the federal guarantees are older than the Oregon Constitution, the fact, of course, is that they were adopted in order to bind the federal government to guarantees already established in the existing … another.” 18 USC § 242 : “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

State v. Lhasawa

334 Or. 543 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 19, 2002

Although exclusion from a part of a city is some restraint on personal liberty, we are persuaded that exclusions under the ordinance are not serious enough to qualify as “affirmative restraints.” … The Chief of Police shall grant a variance to any person who can establish that he or she: “i.

Florey v. Meeker

194 Or. 257 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1952

Meeker operated a mercantile business known as the M & M store, originally established by his father in Medford, Oregon. … Under this definition the document before us is clearly a joint and mutual will.

State v. Lissy

304 Or. 455 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1987

She retained an attorney and was granted immunity for her cooperation. … Read alone, ORS 165.540(1)(a) clearly exempts as a criminal offense that which would be illegal under chapter 165.