Case law

Gurdane v. Northern Wasco County Peoples' Utility District

183 Or. 565 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 6, 1948

A., which authorizes the issuance of bonds by utility districts, provides: “For the purpose of carrying into effect the power herein granted, any district, when authorized by a majority of the qualified voters of such district … of the council, and whether they act wisely or unwisely in so doing, it is not the province of a court of equity to interfere, so long as they exercise such judgment or discretion in good faith; * # *” *581 The evidence clearly

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. Chapman

367 Or. 388 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2020

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, 149 Or App 607, 621, 945 P2d 534 (1997). 8 An informal estimate offered by an employee of the delivery service would not qualify. … That may qualify as filing proof of the mailing date: Certainly, nothing in the text of ORS 19.260(1)(b) excludes that possibility.

Walker v. MACKEY

197 Or. 197 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1952

"And the court now being advised in the premises finds that the plaintiff has clearly established by a preponderance of the evidence that *206 the defendant, Ena Fay Mackey, orally contracted to sell to Robert Walker, in … Here plaintiff not only alleged a cause of suit in equity, but on the trial clearly established the same by proof.

State v. McDaniel

115 Or. 187 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1924

E. 1077 ). ‘ ‘ The officer has no judicial immunity for errors of judgment. He must be right or suffer. … The evidence that was admitted was sufficient to establish the charge in the indictment.

Leach v. Gunnarson

290 Or. 31 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1980

Powell [2] states: "* * * A covenantee is not prevented from recovering by proof that he knew of the encumbrance when he accepted the deed; but, this statement must be qualified by excepting physical conditions of the land … Denies that at the time alleged in said Para III or any other time said irrevocable licenses were established encumbrances on the property therein described.

Portland General Electric Co. v. Judd

184 Or. 386 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1948

municipal corporations were created in the same manner, and were in existence when the organic law was amended, we do not think the terms ‘local’ and ‘special’, as used in Section la of Article IV of the constitution to qualify … In that case the plain *401 tiff was a quasi-municipal corporation suing to protect the public interest against a clearly unauthorized attempt to invoke the referendum.

Post v. OREGONIAN PUBLISHING COMPANY

268 Or. 214 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1974

Metromedia, supra, established the principle that the news media are shielded by the First Amendment from liability for the publication of a defamatory story about a subject of public or general interest, unless published … As we have already indicated, the APB clearly suggested the likelihood that plaintiff had been involved in the incident. A fair reading of the APB leaves the impression that plaintiff was one of the suspects.

State v. Moen

309 Or. 45 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1990

This judicial conduct establishes a new and potentially mischievous precedent which I can not join. Accordingly, I dissent from that change in the law. … Chatfield’s adult *119 grandson, who was there, testified to establish the shotgun incident date.

Fazzolari v. Portland School District No. 1J

303 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1987

The court intervenes only when it can say that the actor’s conduct clearly meets the standard or clearly falls below it.” 255 Or at 607. 16 III. … The dissent in the Court of Appeals distinguished these decisions on grounds that public school students are not analogous to customers of business establishments conducted for profit. Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist.

Schramm v. Bank of California, National Ass'n

143 Or. 546 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1933

The entire act, in our opinion, clearly indicates a general purpose to preserve the assets of banks free from all liens except the one granted to the depositors. … The note given to the national bank which had made the excessive loan was no longer owned by the bank but was involved in a suit between its new owner and a third party who were endeavoring to establish priorities to a fund

State v. Selness

334 Or. 515 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 19, 2002

Morrow is unspecific about the lands of penalties that mark a civil proceeding as criminal in nature, but leaves open the possibility that penalties other than imprisonment might qualify. … The findings clearly express a civil intent. See Or Laws 1989, ch 791, § 1(5) (“[t]he application of any remedy under this Act is intended to be remedial and not punitive”).

Strickland v. Arnold Thomas Seed Service, Inc.

277 Or. 165 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1977

The pool members contend that the above provisions, when read together, clearly indicate that all qualifying seed which came under Arnold Thomas’ control during the pool period would become a part of the pool, and that within … Equitable S & L Assn., 268 Or 544, 568 , 522 P2d 478 (1974), we held that a trustee had the burden of proof to establish that it clearly explained to the beneficiary that a proposed investment of the trust corpus was one

Appeal of Kliks

158 Or. 669 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1937

Ordinarily well-established principles and rules are at hand. … That constant value which levels the effects of depressions and booms is the value which our statute seeks when it employs the qualifying words “normal conditions”. See Tremont & Suffolk Mills v.

LaBarge v. United Insurance

209 Or. 282 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1956

Combs, 76 F2d 775, declares: “All men do not possess like physical strength, immunity to disease, and resistance to senile degeneration. … It is always the burden of the insured to establish that the accidental trauma was the cause of his disability. In Hutchinson v. Aetna Life Ins.

In re John's Will

30 Or. 494 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1896

moneys expended in maintaining schools shall be expended under the supervision of my executors as long as they shall continue to act, and until the trustees hereinafter mentioned and provided for shall be appointed and qualify … By the older English books it was established that, if an instrument be testamentary, and is to operate upon personal property, probate must be obtained, whatever its form, but that a will which clearly respects lands ought

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Cobb

345 Or. 106 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 17, 2008

Misrepresentation and dishonesty The Bar contends that the conduct of the accused that it claims violated DR 1-102(A)(3), discussed above, also qualifies as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. … The Bar alleges without specification that the accused “possessed information clearly establishing that Management Company and MLP were perpetuating a fraud upon the court in the Chapter 7 proceeding.”

Marstaller v. ALBINA DOCK CO.

191 Or. 145 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1951

Though perhaps wholly unnecessary for us to elucidate the obvious, nevertheless, under the facts in this case it is clearly apparent that transportation was a mere incident to the real transaction between defendants. … I feel that as expert witnesses they are qualified to testify on that subject.” This offer was not rejected by the court, but on the other hand, the court took the matter under advisement.

Easton v. Hurita

290 Or. 689 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1981

In the present case, defendant’s identity had not yet been satisfactorily established when the new information was received. … qualify for release without bail.”