Case law

Murray v. Wiley

169 Or. 381 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1942

The evidence clearly establishes the intimate relationship which existed between all of the purchasing defendants in this and previous transactions. Watters acted for all, and all were represented by the same attorney. … Murray showed up and took up the equity of redemption prior to 5:00 o ’clock, that was decisive. ’ ’ The record clearly establishes from the testimony of the defendants themselves that they were possessed of information sufficient

American Federation of Labor v. Bain

165 Or. 183 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 21, 1940

It was declared that the use of the streets and public-places, “for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities … The prohibitions of the statute under review clearly include picketing in bona fide labor controversies. In the statute there is no definition of the word “picket”.

State of Oregon v. Dewey

206 Or. 496 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1956

To warrant a conviction in any criminal case, it is incumbent upon the state to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt each and every essential element of the crime charged; if it fails to establish any one or more of … Clearly that statement does not support the position of the majority in this case.

Robinson v. Leverenz

185 Or. 262 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1949

The witnesses declared that the place where the walk ended and the other began could still be seen clearly at the time of the trial. The point was manifested by a mark or seam. … In fact, the evidence lacks that certainty and convincing proof necessary to establish adverse possession.

State v. Hightower

361 Or. 412 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 27, 2017

State, 992 So 2d 57, 61 (Ala Crim App 2007) (right of self-representation becomes qualified once trial commences); Brewer v. … Guzek, 358 Or 251, 269, 363 P3d 480 (2015), “[appellate] review is better facilitated by a record of findings that is direct, express, and clearly delineated.”

Bowden v. DAVIS

205 Or. 421 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1955

Yet under no circumstances can his guilt be established or a penalty imposed without a judicial hearing. In Lawton v. … Animals running at large are not infrequently impounded and sold upon notice to the owner; but dogs may, if kept in an unlawful manner, be destroyed summarily, because they are at best qualified property.”

Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows

184 Or. 336 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 6, 1948

I must acquire immunity from damage of this sort by special contract with my neighbours. Thus, in Eastern & South African Telegraph Co. v. … The court said: “ * * * it was further .clearly established that these several grounds of complaint were not mere inconveniences but were positive and existing nuisances which would unquestionably offend the sensibilities

State v. Haynes

288 Or. 59 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1979

The prosecution and the trial court clearly accepted the stipulation on that understanding, and we need not speculate what the defendant might have done without this assurance. … That opinion was much qualified in recognition of the changes then occurring in protecting the constitutional rights of suspects, stating that "it is now clear that criminal convictions may be jeopardized on appeal by the

Coffey v. BOARD OF GEOLOGIST EXAMINERS

348 Or. 494 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2010

To enable the board to accomplish that general mandate, the legislature has authorized the board to certify qualified applicants as registered geologists (ORS 672.555), has required the board to promulgate and distribute … Rather, the standard is established by expert testimony on a case-by-case basis.”

State v. A. R. H.

371 Or. 82 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 25, 2023

Article I, section 20, provides that “[n]o law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens priv- ileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.” … Rather, the statute clearly sets out what a youth must prove and what the juvenile court must find— that the youth is rehabilitated and does not pose a threat to the safety of the public, by clear and convincing evidence.

Shepler v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

279 Or. 477 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1977

Oregon Stevedoring Co., 376 U.S. 315 , or for other categories of unseaworthiness which have been judicially established. … Qualified only by such concern for neighbours as exacted by the law of nuisance and trespass, the landowner was virtually immune to demands for the safety of persons who came upon his land, except not to injure them wilfully

Kelly v. Ruble

11 Or. 75 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1883

are capable of being established by the kind of proofs introduced for the purpose. … Ruble was chosen one of the directors of the company, at this meeting and duly qualified as such. He was chosen secretary, and entered upon the discharge of his duties as such.

American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, Inc v. City of Eugene

360 Or. 269 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 15, 2016

But the court also observed that “[t]he public’s right of inspection is not without qualifi- cation.” Id. at 44. … OHSU, 359 Or 168, 376 P3d 998 (2016) (weighing state’s constitutionally recognized interest in sovereign immunity against plaintiff’s right to a remedy as a matter of law); Wallulis v.

State v. Kephart

320 Or. 433 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1994

The legislature has defined the kind of stipulations as to sentencing that it wishes to make immune to review. … Defendant’s agreement with the state, although clearly a plea agreement, is not a stipulation as to sentencing of a kind described by ORS 135.407 and, because it is not, ORS 138.222(2)(d) (1993) does not preclude review.

Agri-Link Corp. v. Schmitz

272 Or. 654 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1975

ORS 607.304(7), and the cattle were then returned to plaintiff. ④ Plaintiff objected to the appointment by defendants of Dale Schmitz as an arbitrator on the ground that as a brother of one of the defendants he could not qualify … However, that contention does not clearly appear from the allegations of plaintiff’s second amended complaint.

Fullerton v. Lamm

177 Or. 655 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1945

If the time fixed by this special statute of limitations is unreasonably short for the employee to assert the rights conferred upon him by the federal act, the stat *691 ute would clearly be unconstitutional; if, however, … The words “over-time pay” are qualified by the use of “such”, which refers to “accrued” and “accruing”.

Greenberg v. Myers

340 Or. 65 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 9, 2006

That statute does not justify the Attorney General’s decision to limit the scope of the relevant Oregon law to that which applies to “a minor 15 years or older * * * » The proposed measure clearly applies to all unemancipated … basis for refusing to grant, or suspend, or revoke a license to practice under ORS 677.190. (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if the person performing the abortion on the unemancipated minor or *82 ward establishes

Doehler v. Lansdon

135 Or. 687 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1931

But, whether they did subscribe to such oath or not, the evidence clearly shows, and it is undisputed, that Lansdon continued to act as one of the directors and as president and general manager of the corporation and that … The by-laws provide that a director of the corporation and the officers thereof “shall hold office until their successors are elected and qualified.”

Applegate v. Dowell

15 Or. 513 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1887

the point or question actually litigated and determined in the original action, not what might have been thus litigated and determined; only upon such matters is the judgment conclusive in another actionT The case here clearly … Such decrees, however, possess an immunity from collateral attack, which public policy requires to be maintained.

Genest v. John Glenn Corporation

298 Or. 723 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1985

In Van the court found that the testimony clearly established the “additional, material terms” not presented by the writing. … The quotation follows: “A binder qualifies as an enforceable agreement if it includes the essential terms of a contract.