Case law

Apex Transportation Co. v. Garbade

32 Or. 582 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1898

Such, to my mind, is clearly the situation of the present controversy. … The facts were practically admitted, and the court simply applied the established rule and took from the jury a matter of which they were precluded from taking cognizance.

Northwest Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center

307 Or. 448 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1989

The only subsection of ORS 19.010(2) by which the order at issue might possibly qualify as a judgment is ORS 19.010(2) (a). … As the quotation indicates, the order’s relevant language was clearly dispositive, in contrast to the language of the order entered by the tax court in this case.

State v. Jesse

360 Or. 584 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 17, 2016

There are also situations where a jury clearly is equally qualified without help from opinion testimony such as offered here. … It is the area between the clearly qualified and the clearly unqualified where the trial judge should be granted a certain latitude of decision in excluding or receiv- ing expert opinion testimony.” Id. at 259.

City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, Local No. 1489

292 Or. 266 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1981

Clearly, these social and economic objectives are the primary purpose of PECBA. … Clearly it is.

Corliss v. Van Duzer

132 Or. 265 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1930

“This immunity rests upon obvious considerations of public policy, the necessities of the public service and the perplexities and embarrassments of a contrary doctrine. … discharge the men whom he was compelled to use might be a good reason why he should be holden to exercise reasonable care in their selection, but we do not think that under the circumstances of this case it is sufficient to establish

Trees v. Ordonez

354 Or. 197 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 3, 2013

Weyerhaeuser Co., 252 Or 377, 384, 449 P2d 426 (1969) (“The law does not require that in order to qualify as an expert the witness be better qualified than anyone else. … Tencer that screws protruding above the plate “clearly” would penetrate into the soft tissue of the esophagus. In addition, Dr. 

Bliss v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.

212 Or. 634 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1958

defendant, Southern Pacific Company, entered into this conspiracy and combine, as alleged in plaintiff’s amended complaint, with the other defendants to injure and destroy plaintiff’s investment and property, it lost its immunity … The pleading clearly indicates such was its course. The pleading revealing as it does an unquestioned right to terminate the lease, the action taken by the railroad is not tortious.

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. v. Dept. of Rev.

372 Or. 509 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2024

Again, however, “solicitation of orders” does not include “actual sales”—which the Court described as one of the “activities that are most clearly not immunized by the statute.” … Because that activity serves an independent business function quite separate from requesting orders, it does not qualify for [Section] 381 immunity.” Id. at 233.

Asher v. City of Portland

133 Or. 41 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1929

this immunity ends. … We include excerpts from the opinion, because they clearly distinguish it from the case at bar. In the Johnston case the action was clearly at common law.

Wallulis v. Dymowski

323 Or. 337 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1996

To establish a claim for defamation, a plaintiff must show, first, that the defendant made a defamatory statement *343 about the plaintiff. Andreason v. … On the other hand, an absolute privilege would immunize a falsehood designed to harm the object of a disgruntled employee’s wrath.

State v. Moran

15 Or. 262 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1887

The authorities cited clearly declare the rule of law applicable to such case, but we think they are supported by the better reason as well. … Having wilfully refused to testify against his accomplice, has he not forfeited the immunity which the State offered him upon that sole condition ?

Palmateer v. Reid

121 Or. 179 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1927

Of course, when the language used clearly and *184 explicitly expresses a condition or defeasance, the court must give it effect unless it violates some well-established legal principle. … There are many decisions which announce the common-law rule that, while the habendum clause might be resorted to to explain, enlarge or qualify the estate granted, it would not be allowed to contradict or defeat the estate

Corliss v. Van Duzer

132 Or. 265 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1929

"II "That at all the times hereinafter mentioned a certain highway leading from Roseburg in Douglas county to Coos bay was one of the duly established public highways of the state of Oregon under the exclusive management … "This immunity rests upon obvious considerations of public policy, the necessities of the public service and the perplexities and embarrassments of a contrary doctrine.

Schwab v. Moving Picture MacHine Operators Local No. 159

165 Or. 602 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 23, 1940

Neither is there any evidence that they were not fully qualified for membership, under the union rules. … The closed shop as an instrumentality of a labor union, membership wherein is reasonably open to the public, establishes a desirable rule governing industrial enterprise.

Mitchell v. City of Portland

159 Or. 91 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1938

The complaint alleges that after the plaintiff had pursued the course outlined by the city’s civil service laws to qualify for the eligible list he was appointed to the position of inspector of public works on January 13, … The county authorities, in a case like this, ought not to be told that they may countenance the intrusion with immunity, and deliver over to a usurper the emoluments of an office to which he has neither a legal nor a moral

Landswick v. Lane

49 Or. 408 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1907

The only question arising on the appeal is whether other laborers than those not citizens of the United States, who have declared their intention to become such, are eligible for employment by the city without establishing … Also, we have the two relatives connected by “and,” namely, “who has not declared his intention to become such,” and “who has not resided within the city for one year,” clearly referring to the same antecedent. “ ‘And who

Howell v. Bain

176 Or. 187 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1945

Howell to fill such vacancy until his successor was elected and qualified. Judge Howell accepted the appointment and duly qualified for the office. … As is so clearly stated in 29 C. J.

D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Hubbard

11 L.R.A. 833 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1891

. * * * Such words in the testimonium clause as ‘witness my hand and seal,’ or ‘sealed with my seal,’ would establish that the scroll or device was used as a seal. … In what other way the party could have more clearly evinced that it was intended and used as a seal, it would be difficult to conceive.

State v. Couch

341 Or. 612 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 9, 2006

Under that definition, the state argues, “wildlife” clearly would include the deer species named in the challenged information. … As we have established, however, that premise cannot be squared with the plain text of the term’s definition in ORS 496.004(19).

State v. Langley

314 Or. 247 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1992

The statute also violates the vagueness, due process, equal protection and privileges and immunities guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” … Defendant asserts that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to establish the torture charge.