Case law

State v. Davis

295 Or. 227 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1983

The state argues that ORS 131.605(2) should be qualified by reading it as if it said, `A frisk is an external patting of a person's outer clothing or some other type of limited intrusion if it is more reasonable under the … The court has since taken it as established that Laundy adopted the Weeks rule in Oregon to effectuate Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 9. See State v.

Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLC

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

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 … At trial, plaintiffs did not clearly identify any theory of an “improper means” through which defendant had acted.

Thompson v. Union Fishermen's Co-Op. Packing Co.

118 Or. 436 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1925

plaintiff was by the County Court of the State of Oregon, for Clatsop County, duly appointed administratrix of the estate of Olga Thompson, deceased, and ever since said date this plaintiff has been and is now the duly qualified … one or the other was a law question to be decided by the court, and in leaving that question to the jury the court admitted evidence both as to facts that would create a liability under the statute and also evidence to establish

Mutzig v. Hope

176 Or. 368 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1945

But any county is clearly the wrong one in *Page 389 which to sue a natural person if it is neither the county of defendant's residence, nor the one in which the defendant can be found at the commencement of the action (unless … other than that in which it has its principal office or place of business, or the cause of action arose, is a personal privilege that may be waived, and that when a corporation is sued in a wrong county the exemption or immunity

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Marandas

351 Or. 521 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2012

To establish a violation of either rule, the Bar must prove, by clear and 18 convincing evidence, that the accused's statements to the court and parties regarding 19 confidentiality were false, that the accused knew … As discussed below, 19 an attorney may not be disciplined for asserting plausible positions in litigation, assuming 20 that the positions were not asserted for a clearly impermissible purpose.

Kinney v. Uglow

163 Or. 539 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1939

Uglow, named in the will both as executor and as trustee, was appointed and qualified as such executor April 16, 1925. … His account, however, shows that the drug store paid $65 for each of the months of January, February, April and June of that year, and $130 in both July and September, clearly indicating that the rental remained at $65 per

PETERS v. McKAY

195 Or. 412 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1951

From 11 December 1941 to 8 May 1945, that is, from the commencement of war between the United States and Germany until the liberation of The Netherlands, the running of the statutory period was clearly suspended. … legal title of the state to escheated property can be divested only in the mode and by the persons designated by law, and that no person can take advantage of a statute protecting the rights of heirs unless he was a legally qualified

State v. Branch

Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 2018

Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 754, 359 P3d 232 (2015) (“The doctrine of the last antecedent provides that ‘[r]eferential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent … See Gaines, 346 Or at 171; see also Cloutier, 351 Or at 102 (“The fact of the matter, however, is that the legislative history * * * provides a little something for everyone and does not clearly resolve the mat- ter one way

State v. Branch

Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 2018

Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 754, 359 P3d 232 (2015) (“The doctrine of the last antecedent provides that ‘[r]eferential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent … See Gaines, 346 Or at 171; see also Cloutier, 351 Or at 102 (“The fact of the matter, however, is that the legislative history * * * provides a little something for everyone and does not clearly resolve the mat- ter one way

State v. Branch

Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 2018

Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 754, 359 P3d 232 (2015) (“The doctrine of the last antecedent provides that ‘[r]eferential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent … See Gaines, 346 Or at 171; see also Cloutier, 351 Or at 102 (“The fact of the matter, however, is that the legislative history * * * provides a little something for everyone and does not clearly resolve the mat- ter one way

Colby v. City of Medford

85 Or. 485 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1917

After being signed by more than the required number of qualified electors, the petition was regularly filed with the recorder of the city on December 19, 1916. … The established rule is that every contract embraces and includes all those laws which exist at the time and place where the contract is executed and where it is to be performed, and affect the validity, construction, discharge

Hall v. Risley and Heikkila

188 Or. 69 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1949

However, it appears to be undisputed that the building in question did not qualify under the Housing And Other Codes And Ordinances for use as a single family dwelling. … Steinway Sons , supra, is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.

Saif Corp. v. Allen

320 Or. 192 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1994

Claimant disagrees and argues that, even under the cases on which insurer relies, this claim qualifies for a fee award under ORS 656.386(1). … the director may be modified only if it: “(a) Violates a statute or rule; *213 “(b) Exceeds the statutory authority of the agency; “(c) Was made upon unlawful procedure; or “(d) Was characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Davenport

334 Or. 298 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2002

The Bar has the burden of establishing the alleged misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. BR 5.2. … Here, what the accused did clearly was wrong. He is not a simple scapegoat.

Armatta v. Kitzhaber

327 Or. 250 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1998

Thus, although the debates from the Indiana constitutional convention do not reveal clearly the drafters’ intent when they created the separate-vote requirement, the debates do indicate that the delegates viewed the amendment … «íjí * * * * *270 “(c) An initiative amendment to the Constitution may be proposed only by a petition signed by a number of qualified voters equal to eight percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for

State v. Butler

96 Or. 219 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1919

His qualifying reservations only affect the weight to be given to those sworn statements. … by the ordinary and established methods of procedure.

State v. Acremant

338 Or. 302 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 17, 2005

Because such a change in the law benefits only the state, this court unanimously concluded that it “undoubtedly qualifies as a ‘one-sided’ change that makes the imposition of a sentence of death more likely[.]” … Clearly a black and white photo is less vivid and, perhaps, less demonstrative than a color photo.

State of Oregon v. Hansen

195 Or. 169 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 21, 1952

The defendant argues that opportunity alone is not sufficient to establish guilt. This, of course, is true. … monoxide, the propositions being inseparable as far as evidence is concerned, the following clearly establish all of them.

Couey v. Atkins

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.

Silver Falls Timber Co. v. Eastern & Western Lumber Co.

149 Or. 126 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1934

I am not qualified to say how general that practice was.” C. Gr. … Clearly the timber cannot be worth $4 per thousand feet for one purpose and be virtually worthless for another purpose.