Case law

East Valley Water v. Water Resources Commission

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

The term “benefi- cial use” is not specifically defined by statute, but qualifying beneficial uses include domestic use, municipal water sup- ply, 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.

Benson v. Williams

174 Or. 404 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 1, 1944

We shall assume, inasmuch as he appeared in both capacities in the circuit court, apparently without objection, that the will has been admitted to probate and that he is the duly appointed, qualified and acting executor and … the contract, been looked upon with jealousy, and the evidence to establish it will be weighed in the most scrupulous manner.”

Waller v. Rocky Mountain Fire and Casualty Co.

272 Or. 69 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 15, 1975

Unless the proceedings are clearly and properly in equity we have adopted the general rule that proceedings to determine insurance coverage are to be regarded as in law. Falk v. … It removed the applicability of the young driver exception and made him an "insured" if he otherwise qualified under the definition of "insured." 1 Long, Law of Liability Insurance 3-3, § 301 (1966), states the accepted law

State v. Jarnagin

351 Or. 703 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 26, 2012

As before, defendant said that he left her in the water for five to ten _______________________ "yes" or "no" without having to qualify his answers. 5 Cobb never clearly identified … It 4 provides: 5 "I, ____________, do hereby voluntarily, without duress, coercion, 6 promise of reward or immunity, submit to a polygraph examination.

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

State v. Langley

363 Or. 482 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2018

Like the rule of judicial **502 conduct at issue in Fadeley , JR 2-106(A) and Rule 3.10(A) proscribe judicial involvement by reference to concrete, well-defined situations that, on an objective level, would clearly appear … Sparks establishes the relevancy of the future dangerousness evidence that defendant now challenges on review.

Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon

350 Or. 336 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 19, 2011

Plaintiffs' theory in this case, however, was not that the total amount of PIP benefits was too low—that amount was clearly set out in the policy and met statutory requirements— but rather that Farmers promised to pay all … H & R Block Tax Services, Inc., 174 F.R.D. 78, 84-85 (N.D.Ill.1997) (all class members paid significant fee for tax refund loan that they did not qualify to receive; only logical explanation for doing so was reliance on misrepresentation

State v. Montez

309 Or. 564 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1990

Boley’s voir dire examination does not establish that he was personally biased against defendant or that he was unable to follow the law. … The statute clearly requires unanimous “yes” answers to all questions; thus a “no” answer by a single juror on any question will defeat the death penalty.

Forelaws on Board v. Energy Facility Siting Council

306 Or. 205 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1988

These measurements are clearly unrepresentative of annual averages. EFSC’s findings regarding moisture content are not unreasonable in light of the record before it. B. … It is also not clear that an auditor’s study does not qualify as an *229 “independent study.” In any event, the provision by its own terms does not mandate an independent investigation of TWCA’s site by EFSC itself.

State v. Ofodrinwa

353 Or. 507 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2013

At trial, the state relied primarily on defendant’s statements to the officer to establish that defendant had engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim. … The 1971 Criminal Code and the cases that preceded it clearly point in favor of the state’s interpretation of the phrase “does not consent.”

Smith v. Columbia County

216 Or. 662 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1959

At this juncture, we should clearly point out that we are not here concerned with the actual administration of the law, since there is no issue on that, but only with the question of constitutionality. … Applying the law as above stated to the facts of the instant case, we hold that the classification established by the legislature to be reasonable and not arbitrary.

State v. Quinn

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

The stop and arrest of defendant on February 10 were clearly based on probable cause to believe that he had committed a crime, whether the crime be one of the traffic offenses, State v. … In response to that problem, the Court of Appeals was established on July 1, 1969.

Couey v. Atkins

357 Or. 460 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 2015

Because the court ultimately concluded that plaintiff did not qualify for review under that statute, it did not need to reach that issue. Id. II. ANALYSIS A.  Is plaintiff’s action moot? … Second, there are cases in which the analysis that does exist was clearly incorrect—that is, it finds no support in the text or the history of the relevant 486 Couey v.

Marnon v. Vaughan Motor Co., Inc.

184 Or. 103 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1947

The argument supporting it was stated very clearly by counsel for the plaintiff during the course of the taking of testimony on the accounting. … Whether they do this is a question of interpretation, except as this rule is qualified by the rule stated in § 223." See, also, Krause v.

Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLC

373 Or. 621 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 1, 2025

Elkside Development LLC found the facts necessary to establish the elements of [the] cause of action”); see also Summerfield v. … for the issuance of “[r]estraining orders, temporary injunctions or other actions as the court deems proper, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, the creation of receiverships, the appointment of qualified

POWERS ET UX. v. Coos Bay Lumber Co.

200 Or. 329 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1953

The record clearly warrants a finding that the road which the defendant built is of significant value to Powers. … Prom the description under consideration the sheriff assisted by a qualified surveyor could very readily locate the lands and the right of way which is excepted in the description of the lands owned by appellees.

Earle v. Security Savings & Trust Co.

141 Or. 595 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1932

Instead of marrying a man who had succeeded in establishing himself she married a student. … That he had such a delusion and was influenced by it and made a different testamentary disposition of his property because of it, and that he was sane in most, if not all, other respects we think is clearly established by

State v. King

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.

West Linn Corporate Park, L.L.C. v. City of West Linn

349 Or. 58 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 23, 2010

By the same token, Oregon statute clearly makes a provision for notice to property owners affected by street vacation and gives them an opportunity to be heard and oppose vacation. … ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State * * * subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities