Case law

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

Kamin v. KUHNAU

232 Or. 139 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1962

Thus there was a claim to novelty of some sort, although the evidence does not clearly show in what particulars the claimed improvements over the prior art had been copied by defendants in the construction of their truck … It was established that garbage truck bodies of the type made by plaintiff had not been on the local market.

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.

State v. Blue

374 Or. 439 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 25, 2025

, 273 Or at 368 (explaining that “[m]ost scholars believe” that one purpose of the rule is “preventing fraud”); White, 4 Or App at 155- 56 (explaining that, when it appears that “what is called the secondary evidence is clearly … We further conclude that the trial court’s admis- sion of the photograph did not qualify as harmless error.

Clostermann v. Schmidt

215 Or. 55 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1958

of Hof by American troops two weeks prior to decedent’s death gave rise to reciprocity of a kind in that limited area of German territory, it was, nevertheless, not of a kind or quality which would satisfy the standards established … The Custodian presents a temporary form of military government limited to a small occupied section of Nazi Germany, as one qualified to grant the reciprocity contemplated by § 61-107, OCLA, supra.

Bernstein Bros. v. Department of Revenue

294 Or. 614 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1983

By enacting section 9, the legislature clearly intended to discourage the exercise of this right. This section created an inhibition on the exercise of the right that cannot be tolerated. … This is clearly unconstitutional. The majority makes a distinction between referring "this act" and "this act, or any part thereof."

State Ex Rel. Sisemore v. Standard Optical Co.

182 Or. 452 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1947

Therefore, if the competent practitioners were not clearly distinguished, the mass of the public would fall into the hands of quacks when their most fundamental needs were at stake. ’ ’ Eneyc. of the Social Sciences, vol. … In our opinion, the evidence established the fact that the defendant corporation, not being a licensed optometrist, has practiced optometry in the State of Oregon unlawfully.

Neumann v. Liles

358 Or. 706 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 3, 2016

Independent News, 298 Or 434, 437, 693 P2d 35, cert den, 474 US 826 (1985) (under qualified privilege of “fair comment and criticism,” a defendant is not liable if publication was made in good faith and without malice); Peck … Although the general tenor of the review reveals its hyperbolic nature more clearly than do the individual statements contained therein, several state- ments can be characterized as hyperbolic.

MT & M Gaming, Inc. v. City of Portland

Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 3, 2016

Cite as 360 Or 544 (2016) 555 narrowing implication of the modifier “legal”: Any “interest” may qualify as long as it is “legally recognized.” … The foregoing history clearly shows that the requirement is a matter of general federal standing jurisprudence.

State v. Caraher

293 Or. 741 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1982

Brown was an easy case in that the cigarette box which the defendant surrendered to the jailer came from one of his pockets and therfore clearly fell within the classification of a search of the person and was a search incident … However, under some circumstances a handbag or purse might qualify under the looser language of the definition and be a “like” which is found about “such clothing.”

Heise v. Pilot Rock Lumber Co.

222 Or. 78 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 25, 1960

In any event, they are clearly not tenable. Does the complaint state a cause of suit or action? … Lucas et ux., 193 Or 401, 410 , 238 P2d 780 , the necessary elements of an action at law for fraud are clearly set forth.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Carstens

297 Or. 155 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 22, 1984

This court in In re Moynihan, 166 Or 200, 221 , 111 P2d 96 (1941) said: “The trial committee that heard the witnesses ‘is better qualified to determine disputed questions of facts than we who read the cold printed record’ … No course of conduct was established. The sixth cause of complaint is dismissed.

V. L. Y. v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

338 Or. 44 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 10, 2005

The second clause establishes an objective criterion, viz., conviction (or its functional equivalent) of one or more specified sexually related offenses. … Clearly, the authorization to the board to “use” a risk assessment scale approved by the department does not transmogrify that policy choice.

State v. White

341 Or. 624 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 9, 2006

The state argued that the foregoing holding in Barnum established "unequivocally that separate convictions are appropriate when the entry and remaining are done with intent to commit different crimes." … Subsection (2) clearly is irrelevant to the present case: There is no claim that defendant's criminal conduct was directed against more than one victim.

In Re Hayes' Estate

161 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1938

In September, 1933, he moved to Oregon and established a domicile in Multnomah county. There, as a retired physician, he resided for two years and five months before death overtook him. … Clearly, it cannot be said of them that they were merely temporarily out of Oregon — Dr. Hayes, as just indicated, never had any intention of bringing them into Oregon.

State v. Langley

214 Or. 445 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1958

Suppose that the district attorney knew that a gambling establishment was in operation in a particular building, but did not know who the proprietor of the establishment was. … In maldng an investigation he qualifies himself to make and swear to the information.” In Speer v.

Burgdorfer v. Thielemann

153 Or. 354 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1936

One of the reasons leading to this conclusion is that the purpose of such oral testimony is not to establish an agreement, but to prove fraud. … that in this action, where all the facts are alleged, and it is charged in effect that the defendant fraudulently prevented the consummation of the original contract in order to deprive plaintiff of his commission, it was clearly

Bird v. Norpac Foods, Inc.

325 Or. 55 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1997

. *61 The text of ORS 734.640(1) does not clearly reveal whether it applies to a workers’ compensation recovery. … ORS 656.593 does not guarantee that all of Bird’s judgment for damages will be reduced to “proceeds.” 13 ORS 18.410 provides, in part: “(1) This section establishes a procedure to obtain a satisfaction for a judgment for

State v. White

341 Or. 626 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 9, 2006

The state argued that the foregoing holding in Barnum established “unequivocally that separate convictions are appropriate when the entry and remaining are done with intent to commit different crimes.” … Subsection (2) clearly is irrelevant to the present case: There is no claim that defendant’s criminal conduct was directed against more than one victim.

Pereida-Alba v. Coursey

Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2015

Rather, the post-conviction court ruled in its letter opinion that “no reasonably qualified defense attorney would have made the choice complained about in the post-conviction proceeding.” … The court explained that, “[i]f the store employees are to be believed, there was clearly a Robbery I. If the peti- tioner in this case is believed there was at most a Robbery III and maybe only a Theft.”