Case law

Seto v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District

311 Or. 456 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1991

The Act establishes an alternative to the usual land use siting and judicial review process, which is governed by ORS chapter 197. SB 573, §§ 1, 3. … Our conclusion is supported both by the clearly defined scope of the Tri-Met Final Order subject to review, which does not include the SDEIS process, and by the special purpose of the Act, which is to establish an alternative

City of Portland v. Holmes

232 Or. 505 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1962

rule reflected by the cases cited by the defendant continued to prevail as to all governmental agencies until 1931 when it was relaxed by the legislature as to cities in proceedings for the condemnation of property for the establishment … Burnett[’s]” was certainly unfortunate and clearly inadmissible.

Hanns v. Friedly

181 Or. 631 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1947

Counsel for defendant then objected to the question, on the ground that the witness was not qualified. The court ruled that, as owner of the property, she was qualified. … In onr view she was qualified to express an opinion as to its value.

Gwin v. Lynn

344 Or. 65 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 31, 2008

However, as this court has held, legislative context and history establish ineluctably that the scope of the rule was not intended to extend to expert witnesses. Stevens, 336 Or at 400-05 . … To qualify as a “fact” witness, the person must not have obtained the evidence principally for the purpose of rendering an expert opinion in that trial. 2 The text of ORCP 36 B is set out later in this opinion, 344 Or at

Gale v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ETC.

293 Or. 221 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1982

Others may qualify for the full amount of the refund while paying little or none of the tax. … A mere showing of discriminatory treatment is insufficient to establish an injury of constitutional proportion.” 270 Or at 629-630 .

Wimer v. Miller

235 Or. 25 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1963

It applies to any one incurring a common law liability for injury to workmen not immune to suit under the Act.” … The Act confers upon the employer immunity from an action for *33 damages. Nowhere does it confer upon the negligent physician a similar immunity.

Daugherty v. Oregon State Highway Commission

270 Or. 144 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1974

We think the kind of highway maintenance involved in this case was clearly not discretionary, but merely minis *148 terial or operational. … The evidence establishes that ice began to form on the bridges and highways at about 8:30 a.m. and was accompanied by or followed closely by a freezing rain.

Vannatta v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission

347 Or. 449 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2009

The restrictions on offering gifts also do not qualify as limitations on the time, place, and manner of speech. … Based on the foregoing, we conclude that plaintiffs do not qualify under ORS 20.080 as parties “affected” by the solicitation restrictions.

Riesland v. Bailey

146 Or. 574 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 15, 1934

The discretion must be exercised under the established rules of law, and it may be said to be abused within the foregoing rule where the action complained of has been arbitrary or capricious, * * * or there has been a refusal … in the properties make them amply financially qualified to discharge the obligation.

Sealey v. Hicks

309 Or. 387 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1990

The first two classes are clearly classes “created by the challenged law itself.” … by law, including but not limited to the limitations established by ORS 12.110.”

Galego v. Knudsen

281 Or. 43 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1978

aid the trier of the facts in his search for the truth. * * *” Clearly Mr. … Durbin so qualified.

Blyth & Co., Inc. v. City of Portland

204 Or. 153 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1955

Dana is clearly disqualified because it is conceded that he is not a resident of the City but resides some ten miles beyond the City limits in Clackamas County. … Dana, therefore, is qualified to sit as a member of the Dock Commission of the City of Portland. The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed.

Welch v. Bancorp Management Advisors, Inc.

296 Or. 208 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1983

Thus, to enjoy immunity, a corporate officer or employe must be acting within the scope of his employment and acting with the intent to benefit the corporation. 250 Or at 76-77 . … In deciding the present case, the Court of Appeals borrowed its primary motive test from the primary motive concept used to uphold qualified privilege in the defamation context.

Jennings v. State

154 Or. 482 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1936

But it found that the immunity statute did not authorize a grant of immunity as broad as the available privilege. It granted amnesty against prosecution for bribery, but not for gambling. … It was contended that a section of the immunity statutes afforded him sufficient protection.

Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Schermerhorn

155 Or. 533 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1937

We find nothing in the above authorities which indicates that these statutes waived the state’s immunity from suit. … The term “in person” found in §§ 6-105 and 6-502, Oregon Code 1930, clearly was not intended as an expression of consent to the institution of suits against the state.

Horton v. OHSU

Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 2016

Plaintiff focuses her argument instead on the sec- ond independent clause, which is qualified by a dependant clause. … OHSU the same court held that “it is now clearly established by repeated decisions, that the legislature may pass laws alter- ing, modifying or even taking away remedies for the recov- ery of debts,” without violating various

State v. Pittman

367 Or. 498 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 28, 2021

The trial court granted the defendants derivative-use immunity and ordered them to testify. Id. … a grant of immunity.”

Douglas County v. Department of Revenue

316 Or. 383 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 27, 1993

Considering the statutes together, we conclude that the legislature made its purpose clear: It did not intend to impose the roll-back penalty on farmers establishing newly qualifying farm homesites on existing farms or on … that the county’s hypothetical argument is correct, the existence of a potential abuse of the statutory shelter for farm homesites does not persuade us that the legislature did not intend the statutory scheme that it so clearly

Liimatainen v. State Industrial Accident Commission

118 Or. 260 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1926

She had her hearing-before that tribunal and if she would appeal she must bring herself clearly within the terms of the statute by appeal to the Circuit Court of the county in which she resides. … J. 802: “It is not within the power of litigants to invest a court with any jurisdiction or power not conferred *278 on it by law, and accordingly it is well established as a general rule, that, where the court has not jurisdiction

State Ex Rel. Evans v. Kozer

116 Or. 581 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1925

It is contended that this legislative enactment is unconstitutional because: (1) It abridges the privileges *585 and immunities of citizens of the United States; (2) it grants to a class of citizens privileges and immunities … S., Amend. 14, § 1), prohibiting special “privileges or immunities” and guaranteeing “equal protection of the laws.”