Case law

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.

Shockey v. City of Portland

313 Or. 414 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1992

The majority misreads well-established First Amendment 1 precedent used to determine the free speech rights of public employees. … Speech by a public employee about public health and safety is clearly speech on a matter of public concern. In Caldwell v.

Kuhnhausen v. Stadelman

174 Or. 290 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1944

It is a firmly established rule in this state that in actions for malicious prosecution the question of probable cause is a question of law which the judge must decide upon established or conceded facts. … He need only establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Yamaha Store of Bend, Oregon, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A.

310 Or. 333 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1990

No such clearly defined market areas are involved here. … We believe that by using the qualifier “further” in ORS 646.160, the legislature intended that insofar as possible any additional damages must be compensatory damages designed to restore a plaintiff to the place he or she

State Ex Rel. Overhulse v. Appling

226 Or. 575 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1961

In the event that a legislator does not qualify under this resolution for reimbursement for legislative expenses for an entire calendar month, or if the Legislative Assembly was in session for part of a calendar month, the … There are infinite gradations which span the spectrum of purposes from the clearly personal to the clearly legislative.

Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission

346 Or. 366 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 2009

The Act itself establishes a framework and a process for developing the contemplated management plan. … The Act clearly contains gaps that the commission is charged with filling.

Burt v. Blumenauer

299 Or. 55 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1985

4 If the latter, was *64 it “clearly and unmistakenly” authorized by statute? … Suggested analyses of the limits of government speech range from an interpretation of the First Amendment as containing an implied prohibition against political establishment, similar to the express prohibition against establishment

McCall v. Legislative Assembly

291 Or. 663 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1981

The 1952 amendment of Article IV, section 6, vested original jurisdiction in this court, upon the petition of any qualified elector, to determine whether a reapportionment made by the legislature or by the Secretary of State … is true of many other areas of the state besides the old Senate District 5, some of them containing tens of thousands of residents. 8 This effect of redistricting creates no unconstitutional grant of equal privileges or immunities

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Altstatt

321 Or. 324 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1995

The facts set forth below are established by clear and convincing evidence. … DR 2-106CA) DR 2-106(A) provides that “[a] lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee.” (Emphasis added.)

Namba v. McCourt and Neuner

185 Or. 579 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1948

And the legislative assembly shall have power to restrain and regulate the Immigration to this state of persons not qualified to become citizens of the United States.” … Clearly, the provision just quoted sought to restrict the ownership of Oregon land to white aliens eligible to citizenship. Terrace v.

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.

Wiebe v. Seely

215 Or. 331 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1959

It has not said that where another person is also liable for the tort he shall enjoy a similar partial immunity, nor is this a permissible interpretation of the language of the statute. … The ruling was clearly erroneous and prejudicial. The testimony was completely irrelevant to any question in the case. Its obvious effect was to portray Mr.

BURNETT v. Hatch

200 Or. 291 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1954

We find it well and clearly expounded in Senkler v. … For it is the power or authority behind a judgment, rather than the mere result reached, which determines its validity and immunity from collateral attack.

State v. J. C. N.-V.

Oregon Supreme Court · May 26, 2016

and maturity” determination of ORS 419C.349(3) as one of many considerations going to the discretionary “best interest of the youth and of society” determination required by ORS 419C.349(4), rather than—as the legislature clearly … However, focusing on the qualifying word “sufficient,” and the object of the under- standing, the “nature and quality” of the conduct, the state contends that the statute requires no more than an adult- like mental grasp

State v. Johnson

340 Or. 319 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 2006

However, and assuming that the first incident that Robinson described even qualifies as a “prior bad act,” it is clear that it was relevant to other facts at issue in the case. … In the present case, the trial court clearly recognized the foregoing distinction.

State v. Ferman-Velasco

333 Or. 422 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 28, 2002

A defendant who could not establish one of those strictly defined legal reasons nonetheless would “frequently address[ ] the court in mitigation of his conduct * * * [and] cast[ ] himself upon their mercy.” … That is so, because ORS 161.665(1) specifically excludes from the exception those expenses associated with payment of court-appointed counsel — expenses that clearly are associated with the right to assistance of counsel,

State v. J. C. N.-V.

Oregon Supreme Court · May 26, 2016

Thus, under the 1985 statute, youths who were 14 at the time of an act remained immune from criminal pros- ecution. … However, focusing on the qualifying word “sufficient,” and the object of the under- standing, the “nature and quality” of the conduct, the state simplicity” or “worldly-wise, knowing.”

McLean v. State Industrial Accident Commission

189 Or. 405 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1950

C. 1930, 49-1815, defining hazardous occupations, after the usual enumeration, added the words “and all occupations for which rates are expressly established by section 49-1825 ”. … Defendant assumes correctly that the National Guard is a department of the state and that the sovereign immunity from suit applies.

Drake v. City of Portland

172 Or. 558 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1943

Therefore, the respondents say that all of the thirty-three employee parties are qualified to perform the work of Senior Account Clerk, Account Clerk and Junior Clerk. … Clearly, the challenged order was not intended to lessen the seniority of anyone who was in the city’s *599 employ October 26, 1938.

Hazell v. Brown

352 Or. 455 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 4, 2012

7 "* * * * * 8 "We think that it takes little imagination to see how many political 9 contributions constitute expression. 10 _______________ 11 12 "10 We qualify … 11 circumstances to determine whether and to what extent the conduct of giving or spending 12 political money itself constitutes a protected expression. 13 Some campaign expenditures might readily qualify