Case law

Montez v. Czerniak

355 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 20, 2014

That strategy would have been difficult to implement without establishing the predicate fact of his prior death sentence. … Those instructions clearly communicated to jury members that they were free to consider any evidence that they viewed as mitigating.

State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC

371 Or. 23 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 4, 2023

Living Essentials, LLC state,” a qualifier that the court took to indicate that “the acts to be remedied as unlawful trade practices are ones that have affected consumers—in other words, ones that materially bear on consumer … The third relevant word is “confusion,” which has multiple definitions, some of which are clearly not applicable here.6 In context, the definitions that are potentially rele- vant are the following: “2 a : a state of

First Nat. Bank of Burns v. Frazier

143 Or. 662 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1933

Benoe was elected and qualified as trustee in bankruptcy of the Geer company, a bankrupt. Upon the qualification of Y. J. … In referring to several prior decisions by that court, it was said that it was clearly recognized in those decisions that such an instrument was valid notwithstanding a stipulation that the mortgagor might sell the goods

King v. State Industrial Accident Commission

211 Or. 40 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1957

In order to establish their contention, they presented declarations upon the subject which, they swore, the deceased had made. The purported declarations were received without objection. … Clearly, the Shepard and Pratt pronouncements did not intend to overrule the Farnam and McKinnon decisions nor to discard the rule they employed.

State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. SP

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 U.S. at 825 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 .

First Nat. Bank v. Wegener

94 Or. 318 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1919

The right to possession remains in the mortgagor until there is a breach of the conditions, after which the mortgagee has the qualified title, giving him possession: Swank v. Elwert, 55 Or. 487 -495 ( 105 Pac. 901 ). … “As to recording, the rule appears to be well established that a mortgage which was valid when executed and entirely free from fraud is not invalidated in the bankruptcy proceedings simply because it was not placed on the

In Re Dougan's Estate

152 Or. 235 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1935

Dougan a suite of rooms in the establishment wMch he managed when she expressed an interest as a prospective tenant. Mrs. J. W. McNeff, who lived in the Ambassador apartments, showed Mrs. … We believe this doctrine to be sound, when properly understood and properly qualified.

Huebener v. Chinn

186 Or. 508 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 4, 1949

For instance, according to the decision: “As to the mortgage company, the principal question is as to the propriety of an instruction whereby the jury were informed that the title of Adams and Beech (the defendants) was a qualified … There must be such complexity as makes it clearly appear that the case presents a problem too difficult for a jury to unravel.

Wood v. Honeyman

178 Or. 484 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1945

Showing clearly that Mr. … We are clearly satisfied that this assignment of error possesses no merit.

Marks v. McKENZIE HS FACT-FINDING TEAM

319 Or. 451 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 11, 1994

The court wrote: "Clearly, the work now done by IRGs could again be done by the NAMHC [8] if it sat continuously instead of meeting three times a year for about two days each time. … Thus, plaintiffs' complaint can be read to establish that defendant was acting for and on behalf of the District.

Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co.

Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2017

Consequently, plain- tiff asserts that transportation costs to obtain medical ser- vices qualify as PIP benefits. … However, as the majority acknowledges, the text of ORS 742.524(1)(a) is not so clearly limited; it can be read to require payment of such expenses.

Chernaik v. Brown

367 Or. 143 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 22, 2020

The circuit court concluded that (1) plaintiffs’ requested declaratory relief exceeded the court’s authority under Oregon’s Declaratory Judgment Act, (2) plaintiffs’ claims were barred by sovereign immunity, (3) the requested … Applying that test, plaintiffs conclude that the atmosphere qualifies as a public trust resource.

OHSU v. Oregonian Publishing Co., LLC

Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 19, 2017

OHSU, 278 Or App at 194 n 3. 16  Because The Oregonian has not separately analyzed the categories of information that it requested in terms of whether those categories independently qualify as protected health information … Oregonian Publishing Co., LLC ‘* * * medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’ ” Id. (quoting 5 USC § 522(b)(6)).

State v. Anderson

374 Or. 326 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 25, 2025

Determining when a person has been “take[n] from ‘from one place to another’ ” is, as this court explained in Murray, “an exercise in metaphysics”: “The words ‘from’ and ‘to’ create no problem here, because they clearly … In context, we understand Sierra to hold that minimal movements are unlikely to qualify as movement “from one place to another,” even if the move- ment may also have increased the victim’s isolation or limited their freedom

Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co.

361 Or. 62 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2017

Consequently, plain- tiff asserts that transportation costs to obtain medical ser- vices qualify as PIP benefits. … However, as the majority acknowledges, the text of ORS 742.524(1)(a) is not so clearly limited; it can be read to require payment of such expenses.

OHSU v. Oregonian Publishing Co., LLC

Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 19, 2017

OHSU, 278 Or App at 194 n 3. 16  Because The Oregonian has not separately analyzed the categories of information that it requested in terms of whether those categories independently qualify as protected health information … Oregonian Publishing Co., LLC ‘* * * medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’ ” Id. (quoting 5 USC § 522(b)(6)).

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

325 Or. 530 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1997

Further, the auditors made the lump sum adjustments, some of which were substantial, based solely upon their judgment, as opposed to following any established procedure. … Weil, President, Roosevelt University) (local assessors try to keep assessments down in order to keep taxes low and to help local school districts qualify for financial assistance).

Strawn v. Farmers Insurance

353 Or. 210 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 22, 2013

Strawn, as the party seeking an award of fees, has the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the fee amount that he requests. Hillsboro v. Maint. & Const. … On that issue, Strawn asserts that about 40 percent of the fees sought in the main petition qualify for the fee-shifting award against Farmers, while 60 percent of those fees qualify for the award from the common fund.

East Valley Water v. Water Resources Commission

374 Or. 148 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 7, 2025

The term “beneficial use” is not specifically defined by statute, but qualifying beneficial uses include domestic use, municipal water supply, irrigation, power development, industrial use, mining, recreation, conservation … That concept is reflected most clearly in ORS 540.610(1), which provides that “beneficial use” is the “basis, the measure and the limit of all rights to use of water” in the state.

Blue River Sawmills, Ltd. v. Gates

225 Or. 439 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1960

That such is the law is *480 well established. For example, Watts v. … The evidence establishes that the defeasance clause was somehow omitted from the deed. I dissent.