Case law

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.

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.

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.

Behnke-Walker Business College v. Multnomah County

173 Or. 510 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1943

The Tennessee court held that the portion of its property *534 which was entitled to immunity from taxation was that portion physically used and- actually occupied in educational work. … It is there held that the term “college” means a building *547 or group of buildings in which scholars are housed, fed, instructed and governed under college discipline, while qualifying for their university degree, whether

Drake Lumber Co. v. Paget Mortgage Co.

203 Or. 66 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1954

was not only fully apprised of the details of the plan of procedure which we have outlined and the object to be accomplished by it, but was herself a party to it, having signed the memorandum of December 16,1942, which clearly … Bennett, who qualified as an expert witness on the subject, testified that he made an inspection of the two houses after they were completed, from which he determined that material of the kind and character furnished by Drake

State v. Meade

327 Or. 335 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1998

clarification of a suspect's statements at length or to restate Miranda warnings and the consequences, some of which are negative, of an invocation of constitutional rights. [5] If the suspect, in responding, conditions or qualifies … As Edwards confirms, a waiver of rights cannot be established in this context "by showing only that [the suspect] responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights." 451

Security Bank v. Chiapuzio

304 Or. 438 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1987

ORS 93.710(1) provides for recordation of the interests created by a land sale contract and, now more clearly, for recordation of a security interest in the land subject to a land sale contract. 5 There is not, however, a … The Bank’s recordation of its interest was adequate to give constructive notice to Chiapuzio; therefore, Chiapuzio cannot qualify for priority under ORS 79.3010.

State v. Quinn

290 Or. 383 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1981

Instead, the drafters of this measure prepared a measure which, in my opinion, clearly fails to satisfy requirements of the Constitution of the United States as stated by the Supreme Court of the United States. … In response to that problem, the Court of Appeals was established on July 1, 1969.

Weiss and Hamilton v. Gumbert

191 Or. 119 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1951

Mead also wrote defendant, withdrawing the original offer of March 28 for the reasons: "(a) false representations were made with respect to the net profits of the business, and (b) the offer has not been accepted by anyone qualified … and discovered that in the original draft of the act as filed in the office of the Secretary of State there was a comma (,) instead of a semicolon (;) after the words "on all moneys after the same becomes due," thereby clearly

Oregon & Cal. R. R. v. Jackson County

38 Or. 589 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1901

*601 ruling that fraudulent taxation should be restrained wherever the case is. such that the motive can be legally inquired into — as it always may be in the case of the subordinate agencies — is, in our opinion, very clearly … In order to become qualified for entering upon the discharge of his duties as clerk, he resigned as assessor shortly before taking the oath of office.

State Ex Rel. Western Seed Production Corp. v. Campbell

250 Or. 262 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1968

The court stated: "[Due process limitations] * * * are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. … The majority opinion makes it appear that the only question is one of establishing the limits on who may be sued and concludes that the remote seller cannot be.

Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. of Texas v. Wildish Construction Co.

306 Or. 102 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1988

The Barneses in their petition for review recognize that it is “well established” in Oregon that permanent injury and temporary injury to real property warrant different measures of damage. See ante at 112. Hanns v. … Peavey, supra, this court said that the injury need not last forever to qualify as permanent damage. 279 Or at 10 .

Eldred v. Burns

182 Or. 394 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1947

This proposition is well established by the authorities, and we so hold. … He was clearly a trespasser attempting to cross the Kingsley property.

Yeatts v. Polygon Northwest Co.

Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2016

Moreover, Trytko verified that Wood Mechanix’s employees were trained and instructed in fall protection protocols and that Wood Mechanix would have a “competent and qualified person” inspect the fall-protection equipment … However, the court also cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 409 (1965), for the proposition that there are a variety of exceptions to that rule of immunity. Macomber, 249 Or at 65 n 3.

In re Day

362 Or. 547 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 2018

We now proceed to consider whether, under the standards set out at the outset of this opinion, 362 Or. at 550-53, 413 P.3d at 412-14, the evidence clearly and convincingly established the alleged misconduct violations that … BAS did not initiate a complaint against [respondent] with the Commission and clearly did not want to participate in these proceedings.

Landauer v. State Industrial Accident Commission

175 Or. 418 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1944

We are not unaware of the embarrassment attendant upon an attempt to establish, even by the most learned members of the medical profession, what causes cancer. … compensation Avithin twelve months from the date of the injury, the court of appeals in affirming the commission’s action in dismissing the claim and the Superior Court’s order of affirmance of such dismissal, say: “The law itself clearly

Yeatts v. Polygon Northwest Co.

360 Or. 170 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2016

Moreover, Trytko verified that Wood Mechanix’s employees were trained and instructed in fall protection protocols and that Wood Mechanix would have a “competent and qualified person” inspect the fall-protection equipment … However, the court also cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 409 (1965), for the proposition that there are a variety of exceptions to that rule of immunity. Macomber, 249 Or at 65 n 3.

Perez v. Potier

179 Or. 123 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 1, 1946

I remember clearly that she said it was for life of both and the one who lived the longest would own the property. Q. … It may be inferred from plaintiff’s contentions, although not too clearly, that Bessie Potier was to devise the real property to Perez if she predeceased him.

Crimson Trace Corp. v. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

355 Or. 476 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 30, 2014

To qualify for the attorney-client privilege as defined at OEC 503 (2), a communication must be a “confidential communication,” that is, a communication “not intended to be *491 disclosed to third persons.” … But that has no bearing on the interpretation or application of a rule of evidence that clearly applies.

Farmer v. Baldwin

346 Or. 67 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 26, 2009

“(b) Concise statements of the legal question or questions presented on review and of the rule of law that petitioner on review proposes be established, if review is allowed. … The qualifiers “attempt” and “as nearly as practicable” are key terms.