Case law

Gard v. Henderson

95 Or. 520 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1920

owns less than an acre of land, is in conflict with Article I, Section 20 of the Constitution of the State of Oreg'on, providing that— “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities … an equivalent amount of type matter, which shall have at least two hundred bona fide subscribers living within the county in which the newspaper is published; providing *525 further, that such newspaper shall have been established

State v. Putney

110 Or. 634 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1924

Clearly, the court committed no error in denying defendant’s application for the postponement of this trial. … It is a well-established general rule that in a prosecution for crime of rape, the state is not permitted to introduce evidence tending to prove that the defendant committed, or attempted to commit, a like offense upon a

City of Portland v. Goodwin

187 Or. 409 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1949

The court said : “ * * * In subdivision 3, roaming is qualified by the language ‘without any lawful business.’ … The ordinance does not violate the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment to the federal constitution. Pinkerton v.

Brown v. Truax

58 Or. 572 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 16, 1911

Charlton was clearly proved, as we think it was; but, giving this fact its greatest effect, it could make no difference in this case. … It is contended that the witness Seaman was not qualified to testify as to the market value of the wood.

State Highway Commission v. Arnold

218 Or. 43 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1959

At the conclusion of the effort to qualify Mr. Holbrook as a witness the trial judge concluded: “Oh, I don’t believe this man is qualified to testify as an expert. … This is clearly stated in United States v. 13.40 Acres of Land in City of Richmond, 56 F Supp 535, 538 (D.C.

Reynolds v. Schrock

341 Or. 338 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 8, 2006

See Straube, 287 Or at 371 (plaintiff has burden of negating qualified privilege). … We therefore do not consider Marklejfs other arguments concerning the differences between the elements required to establish liability under those two subsections. 9 In some cases, this court has referred to section 890 of

Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Department of Human Resources

297 Or. 562 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1984

The Court of Appeals found that the rule violated the equal privileges and immunities clause of the Oregon Constitution (Article I, Section 20). Planned Parenthood et al v. … Only if the action was clearly so authorized is there any reason to decide whether the state or local government has adopted a policy that the constitution forbids. See generally State v.

State Ex Rel. Ricco v. Biggs

198 Or. 413 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 11, 1953

Biggs, at all times herein mentioned are the duly elected, qualified and acting Circuit Judge of the State of Oregon for the Ninth Judicial District, and at all times herein mentioned you were and are exercising all of the … The securing to parties accused of crime a fair trial by an impartial jury, * * *, has ever been the solicitude of the common law. * * * “The importance of any immunity, however, does not depend so much upon constitutional

Foster v. Clark

309 Or. 464 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1990

Appling, supra, as being the more clearly reasoned and stating the correct rule, which is: Courts have jurisdiction and authority to determine whether a proposed initiative or referendum measure is one of the type authorized … Another city’s practice of naming and renaming streets only through a process akin to that established for the City of Portland by PCC §§ 17.93.010 et seq. may establish that the activity is “administrative” and not subject

Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'Leary

303 Or. 297 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1987

Additionally, even if the prosecution makes the necessary showing, the court may refuse to compel the witness to testify if it “finds that to do so would be clearly contrary to the public interest.” … We have not been made aware, however, of any well-established tradition in 1859 to close the sort of hearing mandated by ORS 136.617.

Egge v. Lane County

276 Or. 889 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1976

In other words, we have now held that a showing of malice and want of probable cause is not necessary to establish liability on the bond for wrongfully obtaining a preliminary injunction. … Sigmund, supra, but the case is clearly distinguishable on the facts. Pearson involved a suit between two private parties who had contracted regarding timber harvest on plaintiff’s land.

Vandolf v. Otis

1 Or. 153 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1854

Beyond all question, if the wife must be qualified as a “ settler” in one respect, she must be so qualified in all respects ; so that she must not only be of the required color, but of the required age and capacity, or she … of Oregon had married Indian women; and if it was not intended to place men so married upon the same footing with other married men, why did not Congress say so, instead of using language, by the terms of which they were clearly

Greist v. Phillips

322 Or. 281 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1995

It is well established that the legislature has the authority to determine what constitutes a legally cognizable injury. Sealey v. … ORS 30.265(1), 30.270(1) (1987). 14 The majority opinion in Hale stated that cities *314 traditionally had shared in the state’s sovereign immunity as to “governmental” functions, but that they did not enjoy such immunity

Troubled Asset Solutions, LLC v. Wilcher

365 Or. 397 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 1, 2019

We noted that the result in such cases will be fact dependent, and we quoted Pomeroy's treatise on equity jurisprudence to underscore that " 'even clearly established negligence' " may be insufficient to deny reformation … The court went on to quote Pomeroy's treatise, in a manner particularly relevant here: " '[E]ven a clearly established negligence may not of itself be sufficient ground for refusing relief, if it appears that the other party

Gregory v. Salem General Hospital

175 Or. 464 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1944

It, clearly, is not an ecclesiastical corporation. Hence, it was formed pursuant to the Laws of 1864 and not under the Act of 1872. … The courts, however, are not in accord in the theories advanced for such immunity.

David v. Portland Water Committee

14 Or. 98 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1886

The said section had no reference to any such contracts as could be made under existing laws, and it retains the same right and enjoys the same immunity since the adoption of the said amendment it had befoi'e. … The city had, as I understand, no right to establish water works. The act undertakes to do that and give the city the benefit of it.

Wood v. Fitzgerald

3 Or. 568 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1870

Besides, we are clearly convinced that it would be productive of arrant fraud and gross perj ary to establish the rule that the courts could properly count the vote of a person who did not vote at the time of the election … It clearly appears that a person who has resided in the state of Oregon for six xqonths, and is otherwise qualified, may cast his vote for any candidate for any state office in any county in the state, also, that being a

State v. White

48 Or. 416 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1906

It is not aimed at disqualification, but is exercised upon qualified jurors as matter of favor to the challenger. … It is well established in this state that a codefendant not on trial cannot testify for or against a codefendant on trial, unless such codefendant has been acquitted or convicted or discharged as provided in Sections 1396

Hauke v. Ten Brook

122 Or. 485 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1927

We are clearly of the opinion that the amendment to the charter is a violation of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. … The effect is that, for *490 any reason, one citizen may secure an immunity from a liability in preference to another similarly situated.

Straube v. Larson

287 Or. 357 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1979

because it is not rendred for the purpose which gives birth to the immunity.” 250 Or at 74-75 . … Defendants urge that there is a qualified privilege.