Case law

Stonebrink v. Highland Motors, Inc.

171 Or. 415 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1943

Clearly, there is substantial evidence that plaintiff, in procuring the jack, relied upon the judgment of the *424 seller. … The trial court properly held that Paulson was qualified to testify as an expert.

Geo. B. Wallace Co. v. International Ass'n of Mechanics

155 Or. 652 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1936

Clearly one of the principal purposes of the act was to protect labor from the abuses of unrestrained issuance of injunctions in industrial controversies. … We are convinced that the immunity from injunctions clearly extends to disputes between persons engaged in the same industry or craft who have a “direct or indirect” interest therein, and is not limited to disputes between

Witham v. McNutt

186 Or. 668 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 25, 1949

Accepting the estimate or guess of the witness Willian *696 that 75 qualified voters failed to vote on the annexation issue, it would appear that there were 540 qualified voters in the area to be annexed. … On the other hand, we think that the preponderance of evidence establishes that the result would not have been changed had there been strict compliance.

Jarvill v. City of Eugene

289 Or. 157 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 28, 1980

The original legislation therefore established a tax court with limited jurisdiction over three fields of taxation. … We agree with the Court of Appeals and the circuit court that the District was validly established.

Burke v. Oxford House of Oregon Chapter V

341 Or. 82 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 22, 2006

Defendant Oxford House-Ramona is an individual Oxford House residence, established under the Oxford House Chapter V charter. … The Oxford House memorandum clearly illustrates that defendants structure their lease arrangements to avoid application of the landlord-tenant laws.

State v. Sanchez-Llamas

338 Or. 267 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 10, 2005

Defendant contends that subparagraph (l)(b) above clearly creates an individual right of consular access and notification, including a personal and enforceable right to be advised “without delay” of those rights. … Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed. 10 1 As we explain more fully later in this opinion, the VCCR is a multilateral treaty that purports to define the functions of a consulate and govern the establishment

Luster v. North Coast Transportation Co.

128 Or. 650 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1929

The witness was qualified to express an opinion. He had been an automobile mechanic for several years, had *654 driven antostages and repaired Westingkouse air-brakes, such as were used on tbe stage in' question. … Considering tbe charge in its entirety, it fully and clearly states the issues. Tbe judgment of tbe lower court is affirmed. Affirmed. Coshow, C. J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

State v. Manrique

271 Or. 201 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1975

The decision by that court, however, would appear to leave the “balancing” of these considerations to the discretion of the trial judge in each case, subject to reversal only if “clearly wrong.” … As also stated by McCormick, supra at 451, § 190, “a need to prove identity is not ordinarily of itself a ticket of admission,” although the evidence may qualify under some other exception, such as that commonly referred

Great American Insurance v. General Insurance Co. of America

257 Or. 62 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1970

The action against the commission was dismissed on the basis of sovereign immunity, but a judgment was entered against O’Neil, plaintiff’s insured, for $18,094. … The contract between the commission and O’Neil clearly establishes that the commission through its engineer retained the right to control all phases of the project, including everything from clearing and grubbing, sprinkling

State v. Blacker

234 Or. 131 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1963

WEISER, the duly elected, qualified and acting District Attorney for Polk County, State of Oregon, and in the name of, and by the authority of, the State of Oregon, informs the Court that the said JAMES L. … However, an examination of the opinions of that state discloses that without discussion of the problem a rule of procedure was established by judicial fiat.

STATE EX REL. KASHMIR CORP. v. Schmidt

291 Or. 603 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1981

Defendants, by affirmative answer, asserted immunity under ORS 30.265(3) (c), and the question of damages came on for trial on December 17, 1980. … It contends that by deciding that a peremptory writ of mandamus should issue, the trial court had concluded that plaintiff had established its right to recover damages for the delay.

Albright v. Keats Auto Co.

85 Or. 134 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1917

After using these *137 words the court directed the attention of the jury to the physical and mental suffering of plaintiff, her loss of time and expenses, qualifying each reference by the words “if any.” … The injuries of plaintiff were clearly ‘defined by the testimony; there was no suggestion by any witness that she was liable by reason of the accident to uncertain physical ills in the future.

State v. Cornell

304 Or. 27 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1987

much is clear from the legislature’s use of the term, and a jury may be instructed accordingly. 3 Not every infliction of intense physical pain, even through an intentional act known by the actor to be intensely painful, qualifies … The same authority defines torment thus: ‘To subject to excruciating bodily or mental suffering.’ ” As already indicated, we find the same methodology satisfactory in establishing a constitutionally permissible interpretation

Oregon Pottery Co. v. Kern

30 Or. 328 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1897

the range and extent of such an examination is not subject to appellate review, except in case of an abuse of discretion, we should probably hesitate to reverse the case on this point alone, although we are unable to very clearly … The value of property of this kind may be established by the opinion of witnesses who first show that they are qualified to give an opinion.

Sandys v. Williams

46 Or. 327 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1905

Mhch has been said in respect to the limits of police *338 power, but no text-writer or court of last resort has definitely established its confines. … It is needless, however, to speculate upon the motives that brought about the immunity adverted to, for the city council, having plenary power under the provisions of the charter of Portland, could exempt hotels from the

State v. Hoffman

236 Or. 98 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1963

Paragraph (2) clearly shows the intent of the act to be that the sentence upon the principal offense should be pronounced according to the law applicable to the facts found by the court as to prior convictions. … had been established by legislative action.

Burke v. Children's Services Division

288 Or. 533 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1980

It does, however, seem unlikely that the legislature intended to establish such a bifurcated procedure by indirection. … The case falls squarely within the quoted immunity provisions. Plaintiffs also rely on Tupper v.

State Ex Rel. Willamette National Lumber Co. v. Circuit Court

187 Or. 591 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1949

Nevertheless, relator had a right to stand upon its statutory immunity in the premises, and its resort to mandamus upon the denial of its motion to quash was proper. … The principal place of business, is usually held to be the place where its executive officers meet to transact the governing business of the corporation proper and where its books are kept. * * *” *608 This text is qualified

State v. Worsham

373 Or. 739 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2025

.’ * * * He has a duty, injecting himself, not to provoke or be the initial aggressor, which he clearly does.” (Emphasis added.) … But because none was requested, defendant cannot establish that the ungiven supplemental instruc- tion was correct in all respects.

State ex rel Sajo v. Paulus

297 Or. 646 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1984

We do not suggest that the Secretary of State exceeded her authority when she established a verification process for the 15 day post-filing period. … Qualified voters Article IV, section l(2)(b) requires petitions to be signed by “qualified voters.”