Case law

Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team v. Kitzhaber

341 Or. 496 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 19, 2006

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to impair judicial immunity if otherwise applicable. "(11) Reporting requirement. … The court had no difficulty applying that test in Armatta , because the initiative measure clearly changed the substance of numerous provisions of the state constitution.

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.

State v. Rathie

101 Or. 339 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1921

A disputed question supported by respectable testimony on each side was here presented to the circuit judge, who from his long service on the bench and his residence in the county was much better qualified to decide it than … These assaults, and the seizure of arms and ammunition, while each a distinct offense against the law, were so clearly a part of the res gestae of the conspiracy of which the shooting was one of the incidents, that it requires

State v. Aranda

Oregon Supreme Court · May 31, 2024

Morgan, 192 Wash 425, 431, 73 P2d 745 (1937) (“clearly proper” for prosecution to ask defendant on cross-examination whether he had previously been convicted of crime); Mansbach v. … Here, however, the state con- tends that trial courts must admit—and do not have author- ity to exclude—qualifying evidence proffered under OEC 609.

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.

Southern Pacific Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co.

216 Or. 398 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1959

The agreement provided the maintenance of certain clearances as established by the Public Utilities Commissioner of Oregon. … As a general proposition, indemnity agreements are not construed to cover losses to the indemnitee caused by his own negligence unless such effect is expressed clearly and unequivocally. Southern Pacific Co. v.

Stanfield v. Laccoarce

284 Or. 651 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1978

Incorporated, 264 Or 535 , 506 P2d 486 (1973) (facts clearly showed that employee was returning home from work and was no longer on the job). The trial cotut correctly denied defendants’ motion for a directed verdict. … Roy Laccoarce is not a party to this appeal. 2 Defendants contend that their lack of control over Roy "is conclusively established by the fact that Roy Laccoarce received no payment for this service which was totally unrelated

Hust v. Moore-Mccormack Lines, Inc.

176 Or. 662 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1945

To hold otherwise would be, in our opinion, to ignore the *672 clearly expressed intention of the parties that there should not be a divided control of the vessel, its master and crew. … We do not mean to suggest that the purpose of the law was to grant to agents immunity from suit for their own torts, but simply that it leaves the question of the agents’ liability untouched.

State v. Carlisle

370 Or. 137 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2022

All that the court meant to say, as I understand that opinion, is what those statutes clearly tell us. … The remaining question is whether other indicators of legislative intent clearly refute that presumption.

In re Sanai

Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 27, 2016

Clearly, no other sanction the Court might impose, except for dismissal itself, would be effective in remedying this misconduct.” … established by other evidence that it rendered any supposed error harmless.

State v. King

361 Or. 646 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 13, 2017

There was “no discussion during the course of the [Jimenez] trial whether [defendant] would be offered immunity or anything else for his testimony[.]” … Rivers, 283 Conn 713, 726, 931 A2d 185, 193 (2007) (terms of plea agreements should be stated clearly and unambig- uously, so that defendant knows what is expected from him and what to expect in return); State v.

Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital

293 Or. 543 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1982

Clearly, the 1973 legislation reaffirmed and extended liability for ordinary negligence to persons whose loss is an "indirect" or "secondary" consequence of immediate injury to another. … I, § 20: "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." U.S. Const., amend.

State v. Nagel

320 Or. 24 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1994

This court has a well-established methodology for deciding cases under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. … Carlson, 677 P.2d 310, 316-17 (Colo. 1984). [1] I do not mean to suggest that police conduct that is not a "search" or a "seizure" is immune from judicial scrutiny entirely.

Conachan v. Williams

266 Or. 45 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1973

apparently hold that it is proper to consider not only plaintiff’s actual employment at the time of his injury, but that under some circumstances consideration may also be given to other employments for which plaintiff was qualified … It was held -that such evidence was properly excluded -as “clearly irrelevant” and “speculative” as a basis for estimating his wages on a job at which he had never worked. In Wilson v.

State v. Aranda

Oregon Supreme Court · May 31, 2024

Morgan, 192 Wash 425, 431, 73 P2d 745 (1937) (“clearly proper” for prosecution to ask defendant on cross-examination whether he had previously been convicted of crime); Mansbach v. … Here, however, the state con- tends that trial courts must admit—and do not have author- ity to exclude—qualifying evidence proffered under OEC 609.

State v. Agee

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. 

Tomlinson v. Metropolitan Pediatrics, LLC

362 Or. 431 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2018

Gilroy, 296 Or 718, 734, 681 P 2d 776 (1984) (adopting Restatement (Second) § 895G approach and abolishing parental immunity except in instances where the act is not tor- tious or is privileged). … A physician who fails to take reasonable care to preserve that chance clearly has acted adversely to the patient’s interests.

Journal Publishing Co. v. State Unemployment Compensation Commission

175 Or. 627 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1944

As the New York court said in a similar case: "While this carrier paid the appellant's inspector for the papers which he had delivered, his ownership was qualified, as they could be used only in fulfilling the publisher's … It is argued that the last requirement is impossible of application to this case because the plaintiff has no means of getting the information necessary for keeping such records, and that the other provisions referred to clearly

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.

Goddard v. Farmers Insurance

344 Or. 232 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 6, 2008

Once that rough numerical reference point is established, the other guideposts come into play. … Defendant contends that a course of conduct against a single individual does not qualify as “repeated actions.”