Case law

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Haws

310 Or. 741 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1990

Although the Trial Panel concluded that the evidence presented did not establish, by clear and convincing evidence, the guilt of the accused in the foregoing eight allegations of disciplinary rule violations, we consider … The conduct of the accused here in failing promptly to respond to the request of the bankruptcy trustee clearly falls within the scope of judicial proceedings and could have affected the procedural functioning of the system

Benson v. Gladden

242 Or. 132 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1965

of the post-conviction act, ORS 138.530, under which petitioner seeks relief, are: “(1) Post-conviction relief pursuant to ORS 138.510 to 138.680 shall be granted by the court when one or more of the following grounds is established … OCEANLAKE BRANCH LINCOLN BANK OF TAFT, OREGON OCEANLAKE, OREGON *145 The two lines under the name of the maker-corporation, prefaced with the word “BY” in capitals, clearly indicated a need for the signature of two agents

American Timber & Trading Co. v. Niedermeyer

276 Or. 1135 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1976

The court further found that Ben’s defenses of estoppel, waiver, ratification and laches had not been established by the evidence. … The trial court found that Ben had not established any basis for these defenses, and we agree with this conclusion.

Moulton v. Huckleberry

150 Or. 538 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 29, 1935

Also another limitation of the broad rule stated is found in cases that hold that a qualified physician is not liable for an error of judgment if *547 he applies ordinary and reasonable skill and care: 48 C. … The testimony tended to clearly show that when Dr. Huckleberry was about to leave for Chicago he employed Dr. Shininger to do his work for him for a regular compensation of $5 per day, and that Dr.

State v. Cloutier

351 Or. 68 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 22, 2011

According to the state, defendant 5 fails to identify any quantitative limit established by any law that the fine exceeds in this 6 case. … jurisdiction 15 over that kind of problem, because that problem is constitutional" given that the Chair's 16 hypothetical implicated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 17 the privileges and immunities

Shipman v. Gladden

253 Or. 192 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1969

See 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d at 805 . *924 The right to counsel in the trial court established in Powell v. Alabama and Gideon v. … The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, so far as applicable, reads as follows: "* * * No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the

Phillips v. Creighton

211 Or. 645 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1957

His testimony, as I shall presently show, establishes that the car which he saw was Gosser's. … However, the admonitions which qualify duties in terms of reasonableness were incorporated within the requested instructions, as we see from the following taken from the requested instruction: "to keep a reasonably constant

State v. Bonilla

358 Or. 475 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2015

warrantless search of the box was justified under Article I, section 9, on the ground that a person with apparent authority — from the perspective of the police officers — had given her consent, and that that was sufficient to qualify … Here, the parties’ specific legal theories pertaining to consent were never clearly laid out in the trial court. Granted, the state did not advance an apparent authority theory of consent before the Court of Appeals.

First National Bank v. Connolly

172 Or. 434 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1942

That information was withheld from her purposely, not, as the evidence clearly shows, from any wrongful or sinister motive, but because the members of the family in this country felt that Mrs. … Connolly, whenever or however it might be established."

State v. Nortin

170 Or. 296 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1942

When the specific occasion in question has been called to the attention of the witness to be impeached, and it clearly appears that such occasion is identified in his mind, and he is then asked concerning the specific inconsistent … his mind, together with such circumstances of time, place, and persons present as to enable him to readily understand the particular statements alluded to by the questioner, and he then denies making any, or attempts to qualify

State v. Powell

352 Or. 210 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 19, 2012

The court noted that the pre-existing 13 common-law rule on the subject clearly applied to inducements of both advantage and 14 harm. Id. at 163-64. … The state need only establish that the police recited the warnings 3 completely and coherently.").

Brown v. SAIF

Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 2017

Ordinarily, we think of medical evidence as establishing medical conditions that result from events that occur, not as establishing a particu- lar sequence of events that happened on the job. … Finally, OTLA argues that two other statutes use the words “injury” and “condition” clearly to mean different things.

Portland General Electric Co. v. Ebasco Services, Inc.

353 Or. 849 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 25, 2013

To be sure, that conclusion is a qualified one. … As dictated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is well established that the state may not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without “notice and opportunity

State v. Craigen

370 Or. 696 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 2023

Governments, both state and fed- eral, quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime. … This court restated that framing clearly and repeatedly throughout the opinion.

Oberg v. Honda Motor Co.

316 Or. 263 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 20, 1993

Those terms appear in the two preceding constitutional provisions, where they clearly refer only to crimes. … The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any

Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. City of Lake Oswego

Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2016

Thus, although “[t]he legislature knows how to include qualifying language in a statute when it wants to do so,” PGE v. … First, the owner must establish that it was the owner of the property at the time that it was designated. Second, it must establish that the designation was “imposed” on the property by the local government.

State v. Harris

288 Or. 703 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1980

The statement "our records reveal this order was in full effect on 4-30-78” is clearly an out-of-court statement that was offered to prove the truth of the fact stated and is thus hearsay evidence. … No reason is suggested by the state why the same rule should not apply to "summaries” of entries in public records other than possible inconvenience of producing a witness qualified to give such testimony.

In re Graeff

368 Or. 18 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 22, 2021

The Bar must establish mis- conduct by clear and convincing evidence, BR 5.2, which is “evidence establishing that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable,” In re Kirchoff, 361 Or 712, 714, 399 P3d 453 (2017) ( … However, the Bar does not argue that the record establishes that respondent committed that crime.

Stevens v. Bispham

316 Or. 221 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 13, 1993

Assume finally that it developed subsequently that the attorney had not investigated the facts or the law and was clearly wrong in his advice. … Here, he legally was exonerated by a means that qualifies as “otherwise.”

Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. City of Lake Oswego

Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2016

Thus, although “[t]he legislature knows how to include qualifying language in a statute when it wants to do so,” PGE v. … First, the owner must establish that it was the owner of the property at the time that it was designated. Second, it must establish that the designation was “imposed” on the property by the local government.