Case law

State v. Guzek

322 Or. 245 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1995

The text and context of ORS 163.150(l)(b)(D) (1989) clearly indicate that the fourth question under that statute only permits the jury to consider mitigating evidence. The dissent reaches the opposite conclusion. … Indeed, the text of ORS 137.013, in contrast to ORS 41.415 is qualified — “[a]t the time of sentencing,” a victim has a right “reasonably to express” his or her views.

Smith v. Williams

180 Or. 626 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1947

In the instant case the record fairly establishes that respondent did have a pre-warning of his condition. In Jones v. Pasco, 179 Va. 7 , 18 S. E. (2d) 258 , 138 A. L. … If the guest knows the character of the automobile driver, knows that the driver’s experience and skill qualify him to deal with the road and traffic conditions likely to be encountered on a particular journey, and has no

Neuberger v. City of Portland

288 Or. 155 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1979

The decision with which we are now concerned is clearly quasi-judicial, and we find it unnecessary to formulate, in the present case, a test for making that determination.” … "Minor changes,” it says, should be supported by a factual showing and the "public need and justification for the particular change should be established.”

State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak

351 Or. 179 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 6, 2011

The court reiterated that that line gave the 8 police clear guidelines and added that it also satisfied the needs of citizens of this state 9 "to have their constitutional rights spelled out as clearly as possible … purposes, between 17 the two situations." 18 Meharry, 342 Or at 180. 19 As the state seems to acknowledge, the court in Meharry did not dispense 20 with the Brown and Kock requirement that, to qualify

Haynes v. Board of Parole

Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 5, 2017

The court-appointed lawyer who represented the mother at the termination hearing had been recently removed from a list of lawyers who were qualified to represent clients in such proceedings, and the lawyer moved to withdraw … According to petitioner, the balance of equities here clearly favors excusing his untimely filing, so this court should allow a late filing as a matter of equity.

Hayward v. MORRISON ET UX.

194 Or. 335 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1952

His printing establishment is the only one in the city of Scio. Plaintiff acquired the newspaper plant at Scio in 1942. … Morrison to sign the deed was qualified and was based upon considerations having nothing to do with plaintiff or his rights.

Gardner v. Dollina & Elliott

206 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1955

Clearly that is where the wash occurred when Ward tunneled under the ditch. … Viewed through a View Master, the photograph clearly depicts the details of the scene at the point in question.

State v. Gann

254 Or. 549 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1969

Nor did it permit the courts to extend the meaning of a penal statute to include any act not clearly and intelligibly described by words used therein. State of Oregon v. Smith, 198 Or. 31 , 255 P.2d 1076 . … Inferences may only be drawn from established facts which tend to show that purpose.

Plemel v. Walter

303 Or. 262 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1987

This formula demonstrates the effect of a new item of evidence on a previously established probability. … For example, if the other evidence in this case had established that Walter was sterile, his prior odds of paternity *272 would have been zero.

Shasta View Irrigation District v. Amoco Chemicals Corp.

329 Or. 151 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1999

ORS 30.905(1) establishes that time period as eight years. … Crown Not Bound by Statute Unless Specially Named, or Clearly Intended "The history of legislation is to a large extent a history of the restriction of the royal prerogative, but `it is a well-established rule, generally

Simmons v. HOLM

229 Or. 373 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1961

Thus it is clearly established that the defendants had, by piling lumber in the street, created a blind corner, which not only prevented the driver from seeing the boys until he was north of the north end of the lumber pile … We first refer to the established rule that ordinarily proximate cause is for the jury. No citations are necessary.

State v. Cortes

374 Or. 461 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 25, 2025

When defense counsel sought further clarification on Vidal’s understanding of what qualified as a “weapon,” Vidal testified that the meaning of the term depended, to some extent, on context: “[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Okay. … This is clearly a knife. And under the, the weapons provi- sion that the Probation Officer read[,] this clearly consti- tutes a weapon.”

Haynes v. Board of Parole

Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 5, 2017

The court-appointed lawyer who represented the mother at the termination hearing had been recently removed from a list of lawyers who were qualified to represent clients in such proceedings, and the lawyer moved to withdraw … According to petitioner, the balance of equities here clearly favors excusing his untimely filing, so this court should allow a late filing as a matter of equity.

Menstell v. Johnson

125 Or. 150 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1927

Prom the foregoing we conclude that the term “building line” has a well-established legal significance, and that in the absence of qualifying words, the easement created by a building line shown upon a plat inures to the … The evidence, however, points out clearly the neighborhood immediately surrounding defendant’s lot.

Windle, Adm'x v. Flinn

196 Or. 654 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1952

Windle is the duly appointed, qualified and acting administratrix of the estate of the said J. E. … We submit that appellants’ first theory clearly contemplates a suit or action which will place property wrongfully withheld from the estate in the possession of and under the dominion of decedent’s representative for such

Oregon Environmental Council v. Oregon State Board of Education

307 Or. 30 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1988

Second, it establishes “guidelines and criteria for review and selection of textbooks,” ORS 337.035. 1 It has done so by rule, OAR 581-11-118. 2 Finally, the Board ratifies or rejects the Commission’s selection of textbooks … In addition, if the court reversed, it was required to make “special findings of fact based upon evidence in the record and conclusions of law indicating clearly all respects in which the agency’s decision is erroneous.”

State of Oregon v. Buck

200 Or. 87 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1953

In my judgment, it is clearly demonstrated in the majority opinion, as well as in the opinion of Mr. … In both acts the intention of the legislature clearly appears from the language employed.

State v. Knowles

289 Or. 803 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1980

More specifically, defendant relies upon a claim of immunity from prosecution under ORS 131.515(2). [7] The policy underlying that subsection is that there should not be unnecessary separate trials stemming from conduct which … It then stated that the test was not firmly established in Oregon or federal constitutional law, but cited no Oregon or federal cases casting doubt upon it or establishing any other constitutional test.

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.)

301 Or. 447 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1986

a "built" exception to Goal 3 or 4 "obviously" differs from the same kind of exception to Goal 14 because "an area can be lightly developed in such a way that agriculture is rendered impracticable but the land may still qualify … Second, the county does not clearly define what it considers to be the line between "urban" and "rural" levels of services.

State v. Tauscher

227 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1961

But, as we stated in the latter case: “* * * This assumes, of course, that the charging part of the indictment so clearly alleges facts constituting a crime that the defendants would not reasonably be confused by the erroneous … The theft statute there applicable contained the qualifying clause “provided such property possesses ascertainable value.” The court concluded that the statute was broad enough to cover the case presented.