Case law

Endicott v. Endicott

206 Or. 587 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1956

The law defining the character of proof which is required in order to support a claim of cruel and inhuman treatment is firmly established in our decisions and is not in controversy here. See Billion v. … But in these respects *600 the hospital records clearly support the plaintiff’s testimony. Defendant was for many years an alcoholic and a drug addict.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Hendrick

346 Or. 98 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 2, 2009

In essence, the accused's defense before the trial panel turned on whether the undisputed facts established that he was or was not engaged in the practice of law. … Paulson establishes that, contrary to the majority's reasoning, not every procedural error that affects the composition of a trial panel requires a new hearing.

State v. Laundy

103 Or. 443 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1922

That part of the body of the act now under examination is clearly not broader than the title of the act. … No word appearing in the statute qualifies “organizes” or “helps to organize” or “become a member of ,” and the only word which qualifies “assemble” is the word “voluntarily.”

Sause and Schnitzer

Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 28, 2023

Schnitzer said that he would only con- sider accepting Sause’s eggs if she signed the same forms that were routinely used for anonymous gamete donors by OHSU, despite Sause clearly not being an anonymous donor. … When an error qualifies as plain, “the decision whether to review [it] rests with the discretion of the appel- late court.” Id.

Sause and Schnitzer

Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 28, 2023

Schnitzer said that he would only con- sider accepting Sause’s eggs if she signed the same forms that were routinely used for anonymous gamete donors by OHSU, despite Sause clearly not being an anonymous donor. … When an error qualifies as plain, “the decision whether to review [it] rests with the discretion of the appel- late court.” Id.

State v. Ramoz

367 Or. 670 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 17, 2021

Defendant called a single witness—Meneely—who was qualified as an expert in the field of forensic toxicol- ogy. Meneely testified that Xanax was a sedative, and, when mixed with alcohol, it is “severely sedating.” … We will make such determination only in the presence of exceptional circumstances, as where the error is insignificant or clearly not prejudicial.

Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. BOLI OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES

348 Or. 159 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 15, 2010

Marijuana clearly falls within the first part of the definition. The second part of the definition excludes certain uses of what would otherwise be an illegal use of a drug. … The caption stated that the measure "[a]llows medical use of marijuana within limits; establishes permit system."

Brown v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC

Oregon Supreme Court · May 2, 2024

The scope of the rule comes through even more clearly in comment f, which clarifies what engaged in the “business of selling” a product means: “It is not necessary that the seller be engaged solely in the business of … In fact, the comment suggests that the primary limitation on what qualifies as “engaged in the business of selling” is that it excludes “the ordinary individual who makes the isolated sale.” Id.

Brown v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC

Oregon Supreme Court · May 2, 2024

The scope of the rule comes through even more clearly in comment f, which clarifies what engaged in the “business of selling” a product means: “It is not necessary that the seller be engaged solely in the business of … In fact, the comment suggests that the primary limitation on what qualifies as “engaged in the business of selling” is that it excludes “the ordinary individual who makes the isolated sale.” Id.

State v. Walch

346 Or. 463 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 2009

The words ‘from’ and ‘to’ create no problem here, because they clearly describe the idea of movement, i.e., of a change of position. … In 1967, the legislature established the Criminal Law Revision Commission to revise and modernize the criminal laws of Oregon. Or Laws 1967, ch 573, §§ 1-2.

PacifiCorp v. Dept. of Rev.

374 Or. 189 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 18, 2025

As the quoted text of the constitutional provision shows, it contemplates that the legislature may expand on that definition (“as established by law”). … It is undis- puted that the WSATA Handbook’s provisions qualify as “methods and procedures,” and it is undisputed that those methods and procedures are directed toward the goal of identifying substantially the “real market

Emmons v. Southern Pac. Co.

97 Or. 263 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1920

Its rights would be prejudiced by a judgment against it under such conditions, because it had lost its right to compel the contractor to respond over to it, as he had been exonerated by the judgment in his favor and was immune … The case before us, then, is like the Doremus case, so clearly discussed by Mr. Justice Fullerton, up to the rendition of the judgment against the defendant.

State ex rel. v. Williams

45 Or. 314 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1904

for the arrest of persons whose money deposited in lieu of bail has been declared forfeited, it is not averred that it is incumbent upon him to issue such warrants, unless the duty in this respect can be implied from the qualifying … Clearly, the writ would not be chargeable with duplicity if addressed to one person, although it commanded the performance of a series of acts, each of which was a condition of the performance of its successor, where the

Prime v. Prime

172 Or. 34 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1943

It certainly has not been the practice in this state to construe a decree for alimony, when thus qualified, as binding the husband’s estate. As a matter of construction Mansfield v. … Consequently, a declaratory judgment establishing a continuing liability for the life of the wife would be inappropriate.

Ross v. Robinson

169 Or. 293 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1942

The south skid marks showed less clearly because, according to some *301 of the testimony, the surface where they were made was rougher than that under the left wheel marks. … Later, however, he qualified that statement by saying that he had not noticed the easterly end of the longer mark prior to the accident.

State v. Wolfe

368 Or. 38 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 6, 2021

And, under both versions of the law, homi- cide of a child under 14 qualified as aggravated murder only if it was committed intentionally. ORS 163.095(1)(f) (2017); ORS 163.095(2)(b). … Under SB 1013, however, the homicide of a child under 14 can only qualify as aggravated murder if it was premeditated. ORS 163.095(2)(b).

American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Eugene

Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 15, 2016

But the court also observed that “[t]he public’s right of inspection is not without qualifi- cation.” Id. at 44. … OHSU, 359 Or 168, 376 P3d 998 (2016) (weighing state’s constitutionally recognized interest in sovereign immunity against plaintiff’s right to a remedy as a matter of law); Wallulis v.

Allen v. Hendrick

104 Or. 202 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1922

the gift in trust, he could doubtlessly introduce in evidence anything that would tend to establish the allegation.” … However, the intention must be clearly proved; the language used must be such as to disclose with certainty an intention to create a trust.

Friends of Yamhill County, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners

351 Or. 219 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 20, 2011

See ORS 308A.062(1) (providing that exclusive farm use land qualifies for special assessment). … This court held that, although the board legitimately could have reached the 15 conclusion that it did, the board needed to identify and explain the factual premises of its 16 decision more clearly.

Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy

Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 18, 2024

One is whether—assuming that the proposed facil- ity is required to comply with the “applicable substantive criteria” recommended by the county—the two-mile setback requirement qualifies as one of those criteria. … The wording of track 2 arguably suggests even more clearly a legislative intent to make ORS 469.504 (1)(b)(B) an “appropriate mechanism” for review.