Case law

Schmidt v. Mt. Angel Abbey

347 Or. 389 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 24, 2009

We therefore conclude that conduct qualifies as "sexual exploitation of a child" under ORS 12.117(2)(d) if an individual uses a child in a sexual way for his or her own gratification or benefit, and the child is personally … Examples serve no right or wrong purpose, and the legislature may use examples in one statute to establish limits on an ambiguous term, and in another to illustrate or expand.

Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Columbia River

Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 2009

The Act itself establishes a framework and a process for developing the contemplated management plan. … The Act clearly contains gaps that the commission is charged with filling.

State v. Montigue

288 Or. 359 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1980

One who qualifies as the latter type of individual, sometimes referred to as a `citizen-informer,' is more deserving of a presumption of reliability than the informant from the criminal milieu." … In some of the state court cases cited by the majority for the above mentioned rule such data clearly appears. In State v. Drake, 224 N.W.2d 476 (Iowa 1974) the crime was receiving and concealing stolen goods.

State v. Brown

262 Or. 442 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 24, 1972

Oregon has not been immune. … The legislature clearly intended two separate and distinct crimes.

Jones v. Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines

266 Or. 513 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1973

Our attention has not been called to any evidence which is in direct conflict with any established physical fact. … The truck did not present any hazard and did not block either lane of traffic, and was clearly visible to everyone in its position by the highway.

Antoine v. Taylor

368 Or. 760 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 2021

In that case, the petitioner had been sentenced under ORS 137.635, a statute mandating determinate sen- tences when the defendant had qualifying prior convictions. Id. at 493-94. … In short, petitioner has identified no decision avail- able to trial counsel that clearly held that a demurrer was not an appropriate mechanism to raise a statutory or con- stitutional challenge to the sufficiency of pretrial

State v. Agee

358 Or. 325 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 3, 2015

Because neither party has made a developed legal argument about the scope of Article I, section 16, and because the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence clearly prohibits the execution of intellectually disabled … Hulteng testified that, in his opinion, a person with an IQ score of over 75 could never qualify as intellectually disabled. Specifically with respect to this case, Dr. Hulteng and Dr. 

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Development Commission

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

built” exception to Goal 3 or 4 “obviously” differs from the same kind of exception to Goal 14 because *480 “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. Folkes

174 Or. 568 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1944

But it is clearly distinguishable. … In the case at bar, the making and the authenticity of the confessions is established beyond any reasonable doubt.

Devlin v. Moore

64 Or. 433 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1913

Defendants submit that the following propositions are established: (1) That all of the indebtedness of the Oregon Trust & Savings Bank has been paid and discharged; (2) that there are no stockholders for the receiver to represent … He did not qualify, and never acted as such director, except to meet informally with the officers while he had a real estate office in the bank building.

State v. Dennis

177 Or. 73 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1945

On the other hand, it is quite clearly established that the wife is a competent witness, and that her testimony may properly be received and considered unless objected to on the ground of privilege. … This assignment is clearly insufficient. It sets forth no objection or motion by the defendant, and no ruling of the trial court.

In Re Reinstatement of Gunter

344 Or. 368 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 27, 2008

Even if we accept those claims at face value, they do not establish that applicant was compelled to file for bankruptcy by any extraordinary hardship. … The expenses that come with raising a family generally do not qualify as an unusual misfortune. They are a necessary burden that everyone who chooses to raise a family knows that they must bear.

MacEwan v. HOLM

226 Or. 27 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1961

It, therefore, directed that body to bring to its aid as an advisory committee five persons "who because of their training and experience are qualified to advise" the Board in such matters. … From the foregoing, it must be noticed that the trial court had before it a man who admitted he was not qualified to properly analyze the effect of the radioactive fallout data gathered, either upon plants or people, but

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. S.P.

346 Or. 592 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 13, 2009

ORS 418.783 establishes the CAMI program as a part of the Department of Justice. … In Davis, the Court cited Bourjaily as a case in which “the statements at issue were clearly nontestimonial.” Davis, 547 US at 825 .

State v. Thompson

328 Or. 248 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1999

The court explained that defendant was being well represented by qualified attorneys and that he had not given the court sufficient grounds to change his counsel. … On review, defendant argues that, “Clearly, the prosecutor misconstrued defendant’s statement, and apparently his accompanying gestures, for his own benefit.”

State v. Beauvais

357 Or. 524 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 2015

The state asserts that a medical expert is uniquely qualified to discern and explain the sig- nificance of such a connection to a lay trier of fact. … “the preliminary facts are not case-specific”). 13   On review, the state asserts that defendant made a generalized pretrial objection to the KIDS Center report that is unavailing because much of the report was “clearly

Dept. of Human Services v. A. B.

Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2018

With a founded child neglect disposi- tion, she is no longer qualified for that position. 5.    … If the law clearly lim- ited mother’s options for paid or volunteer work, we would be persuaded of the judgment’s continuing practical effects.

State Ex Rel. Zidell v. Jones

301 Or. 79 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 20, 1986

However, since the October 13th and December 26th orders had the combined effect of terminating the litigation, we believe our jurisdiction is safely established by the rule enunciated in Jetco Electronics Industries, Inc … Nor did that document qualify as the other type of final judgment contemplated by ORCP 67B., which adjudicates " all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties. " (Emphasis added.)

Williams v. Clemen's Forest Products, Inc.

188 Or. 572 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1950

On petition for rehearing, the court qualified its statement that we have “universally” adhered to the holding in Wolsiffer v. … Clearly there was evidence from which a jury could have found that the work in which the deceased was engaged at the time of the accident was inherently dangerous.

Wolf v. City Railway Co.

50 Or. 64 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1907

In order clearly to understand this branch of the subject, a statement of the defendant’s theory of the cause and manner of the injury is deemed appropriate. … Co. 167 Pa. 438 ( 31 Atl. 687 ), as establishing the rule governing the case at" bar.