Case law

French v. State Industrial Accident Commission

156 Or. 443 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1937

Thus, the plaintiff does not contend that there is something missing concerning which she could not be expected to have knowledge; as, for instance, the issuance of a marriage license, the entry of a divorce needed to qualify … Presumptions operate when the preliminary facts demanded by them have been established, and when the party to be favored has not himself negatived the fact which he asks judge and jury to presume.

Rogue Valley Sewer Services v. City of Phoenix

Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 2015

In the same 1906 election, voters “reserved” initiative and referendum powers “to the qualified voters of each municipality and dis- trict as to all local, special and municipal legislation of every character in or for their … This court held the property was nonetheless “clearly exempt from taxation.” Id. at 473.

State v. Cloutier

286 Or. 579 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1979

In other words, this is not a case such as Woolard, in which it clearly appeared from the record that the defendant was separately sentenced on the burglary and the larceny, with the two sentences to run concurrently. … Written law is now routinely qualified, rewritten, or repealed by the courts acting under the authority of natural law, fundamental law, or divine revelation.”

State v. Gensitskiy

365 Or. 263 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 25, 2019

Subsection (1) clearly sets out a basic principle that violations of multiple statutes are punished separately. … There is no suggestion in that legislative history that the intention of making "a separate offense, also, for each victim" was qualified by how many statutes were violated.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Jordan

290 Or. 303 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1981

As stated in In re Moynihan, 166 Or 200, 221 , 111 P2d 96 (1941), although a bar disciplinary case: "The trial committee that heard the witnesses 'is better qualified to determine disputed questions of fact than we who read … He then told her that "Your comment was clearly heard by several members of the court” and asked whether she denied saying it.

State v. Farnam

82 Or. 211 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1916

The general rule in this state is that an indictment for murder in the first degree necessarily involves all other grades of homicide which the evidence tends to establish: State v. … When the intention to be proved is important only as qualifying an act, its connection with that act must be shown, in order to warrant the admission of declarations of the intention.

State v. McDonald

55 Or. 419 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1909

McDonald was appointed administrator by the county court of Union County, and that he thereafter qualified, took possession of all the assets and property of the estate, and administered upon the same in the usual course … We are unable clearly to see that the court below ought to have rejected the deposition, and there was no error in receiving it. 10.

State v. Makuch

340 Or. 658 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 2, 2006

That ‘organizer’ was a zippered, book-sized looseleaf binder, which was clearly marked on the first page: ‘ATTORNEY/CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY PRIVILEGE CLAIMED ON ALL CONTENTS.’ … On reconsideration, however, the trial court concluded that Neal’s personal organizer qualified as “files, papers, [or] effects * * * relating to the provision of legal services” under ORS 9.695(1).

Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon v. Mowry

350 Or. 686 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 9, 2011

Gilroy, 296 Or 718, 733-34, 681 P2d 776 (1984) (abrogating common-law parental immunity because common-law developments and changed statutory context demonstrated that controlling precedent had been "superseded … Unlike in Collins, the North Pacific court focused on whether the insurer 19 had clearly phrased Exclusion 10.

State v. Flores Ramos

367 Or. 292 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 24, 2020

However, the state has conceded, and we have agreed, that receipt of nonunanimous verdicts qualifies as plain error, which is subject to reversal even when the assignment of error was not preserved. … Thus, the state argues, all that is needed to establish harmlessness is the jury poll showing unanimity.

Savage v. Martin

161 Or. 660 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1938

I, of the State Constitution, provides “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.” … The law clearly contemplates the establishment of a natural marketing area. The standard would be violated, for example, if a portion of Tillamook county were included in the Salem market area.

State v. Sack

210 Or. 552 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1957

The evidence concerning the suit for separate maintenance was clearly admissible on the issue of motive. … Assignments of Error 11 and 12 challenge the ruling of the court which permitted evidence of quarrels between the defendant and his wife, which evidence was clearly admissible.

State v. Ewing

174 Or. 487 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 1, 1944

In so far as evidence of misconduct with others does not disclose the same unusual method, it fails pro tanto to qualify as admissible under the exception. … To admit evidence of bad character against an accused it is necessary that he shall already have put his character clearly and expressly in issue. Underhill, Crim. Ev., 4th ed., § 167, p. 293; People v.

Hall v. Risley and Heikkila

188 Or. 69 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1950

However, it appears to be undisputed that the building in question did not qualify under the Housing And Other Codes And Ordinances for use as a single family dwelling. … Steinway & Sons, supra, is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.

Waterway Terminals Co. v. P. S. Lord Mechanical Contractors

242 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1965

In other words, defendant claimed that its contract with a third party established the standard of care. We rejected this contention. Plaintiff cites Presser v. … DEFENSE OF IMMUNITY FROM NEGLIGENCE OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR MHS moved for a directed verdict and urges that its motion should have been allowed.

Association of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren

352 Or. 583 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 18, 2012

conclude that 7 plaintiff's motion for reconsideration did not amount to a motion for a new trial, that 8 determination is conclusive, and we need not address the second and third questions. 9 To establish … Roman * * * [this court] held 19 that a motion to set aside a summary judgment qualifies as a motion for a new trial[.]" 20 Id. at 589. 21 Finally, in Carter, the trial court entered summary judgment

Bonds v. Farmers Insurance

349 Or. 152 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 14, 2010

`Institute' means `to originate and get established: set up: cause to come into existence.' Id. at 1171. … first letter clearly expressed consent to arbitration but that consent was subject to a condition: that there be a disagreement between the parties about the "liability/damages owed by the underinsured motorist."

Leadbetter v. Price

102 Or. 159 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1921

In terms applicable to both Supreme and Circuit Courts, the legislature has established a procedure governing their taxation and allowance. … The cost bill was clearly filed in time.

Strobel v. Garrison

255 Or. 16 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1969

We do not think that the legislature intended to establish a procedure whereby parents could waive their right to personal appearance in any adoption proceeding which might be brought by someone in the future. … In 1919, by Oregon Laws 1919, ch. 405, the legislature granted a quasi-official status to qualifying private child-caring agencies such as Waverly.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of White

311 Or. 573 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1991

The Bar has the burden of establishing ethical misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. BR 5.2. … The evidence does not show clearly and convincingly that the accused filed the lien merely to harass.