Case law

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).

Greyhound Park v. Oregon Racing Commission

215 Or. 76 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1958

The act clearly requires a separate application for each race meet. This is the contemporaneous construction of the act by the commission. … It is obvious that petitioner would receive no benefit from the issuance now of a license to conduct a race meet in 1955. *79 This court has consistently followed the well-established rule that it will not consider an appeal

Whitehead v. Fagan

369 Or. 112 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2021

Judge DeHoog dissented, interpreting this court’s decision in Sajo to establish only a necessary, but not nec- essarily sufficient, requirement for a person to be a “quali- fied voter[ ]” entitled to sign a petition. … But this eli- gibility to vote on election day may not necessarily be a suf- ficient condition for signing a petition, because article IV, section 1(4)(a) clearly contemplates that eligibility as a ‘qualified

Moro v. State of Oregon

Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 30, 2015

Petitioners further argue that the amend- ments violate the state Equal Privileges or Immunities Clause, Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution, the federal Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article IV, section … Thus, the legislature clearly intended that the 1995 offset would not be contractual.

Watts v. Gerking

111 Or. 641 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1924

It is contended, however, although that fact is not alleged in the complaint, that because the defendant Keator was the duly elected, qualified and acting district attorney for Umatilla County and because the plaintiff had … In the first case cited, the court clearly states the law which, we think, ought, to be controlling here.

State v. Catholic

75 Or. 367 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1915

But in all prosecutions under this act the burden of proof shall be on the defendant to establish the facts of his citizenship and residence”: Section 5298, L. O. L.) … The qualified ownership of roving fish in navigable waters within a state is in that sovereignty in trust for its citizens alone: State v. Hume, 52 Or. 1, 5 ( 95 Pac. 808 ).

State ex rel. Shaw v. Ware

13 Or. 380 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1886

Clearly in the office, and not in the term.” … There is nothing here establishing a term of office to exist between fixed dates of months or years.

State v. Setsor

61 Or. 90 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1911

It must present the conclusions of fact, as established by the evidence.” Section 1548-, L. O. L. … But the defendant has carefully precluded himself from that relief, in the effort to obtain total immunity” — and overruled the motion to discharge. Counsel for defendant cites the case of State v.

Hibbard v. Henderson

44 Or. 318 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1904

Congress is authorized to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States: Constitution United States, Art. I, § 8. … in the name of the payee, knowing at the time that it had been discounted; and, the bank to which the note was assigned having no notice or actual knowledge of the proceedings, it was held that the discharge afforded no immunity

Myers v. Cessna Aircraft Corporation

275 Or. 501 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1976

They established the level of icing as extending from about 8,500 feet to over 17,000 feet. … On appeal defendant contends, first, that Jensen was adequately qualified to express an opinion as to the cause of the crash, and, second, that even if Jensen did not qualify as an expert in this area, plaintiff’s motion

State v. Lurch

12 Or. 99 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1885

If Ms deposit of the note with Friendly could not possibly have injured the latter, the intent to injure or defraud would not have been established. … The law throws around him in such case an immunity which ought to be sacredly maintained.

Warren v. MARION COUNTY

222 Or. 307 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1960

This the ordinance clearly does and to this extent, at least, the ordinance followed the command of the statute that appeal procedures must be provided. … Finally, it is argued that the building code ordinance violates the equal privileges and immunities clause of the Oregon Constitution, Article I, § 20, and that it also violates that part of Article IV, § 23 which prohibits

White v. Commissioners of Multnomah County

13 Or. 317 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1886

S., and in effect denies to citizens of the United States privileges and immunities conferred by these laws. The attempt to adopt any law upon the subject seems to have been attended by a series of blunders. … This ought never to be done unless the legislature has clearly overstepped its authority. It would certainly present an anomalous condition of affairs if the relief sought herein were granted.

City of Portland v. Smith

314 Or. 178 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1992

The 1960 Voters’ Pamphlet is an important resource in establishing the voters’ intent in adopting the urban renewal provision. … Property taxes on urban renewal properly clearly are a tax upon property and just as clearly do not fall within the exceptions for incurred charges and assessments for local improvements.

Hamilton v. Myers

326 Or. 44 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1997

See ORS 250.085(2) (establishing the foregoing criteria for standing to challenge ballot titles certified by the Attorney General). … Petitioners have not established that the certified Caption fails to comply substantially with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(a).

Tiedemann v. Radiation Therapy Consultants

299 Or. 238 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1985

Clearly, the affidavit was much more than a general denial, it was expert testimony on the key issues in the case. Plaintiff relies on the case of W. R. Chamberlin & Co. v. … ORCP 47E. applies to cases where a party is required to provide the opinion of an expert to establish a genuine issue of material fact.

State v. Robertson

293 Or. 402 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1982

The remainder of the sentence qualifies the definition by specifying the kinds of consequences which may not be threatened in order to compel or induce the demanded conduct. … Constitutional freedom of speech did not immunize the private communication of demands and threats in such a setting. That principle has survived.

Knight v. Baker

117 Or. 492 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1926

“In order to establish the offense of false imprisonment, it is only necessary on behalf of the plaintiff to show the imprisonment. … It is not claimed that the defendant is immune from prosecution for false imprisonment because he is an Indian agent: John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U. S. 529 ( 44 L. Ed. 874 , 20 Sup. Ct.

Title & Trust Co. v. Wharton

166 Or. 612 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1941

In arriving at the intention of the legislature, courts are aided by certain well-established rules, among which are these: That repeal by implication is not favored (Winters v. … It is to be noted that the exemption was made by constitutional provision, clearly and explicitly stated.

Barrett v. Coast Range Plywood

294 Or. 641 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1983

Oregon cases have considered the requirement for expert medical testimony in establishing workers’ disability. … Clearly the field of specialization of a competent medical witness affects the weight to be accorded his evidence, not its admissibility, and the Commission is the judge of the weight of the evidence.” 509 P2d at 633 .