Case law

Ben Rybke Co. v. Royal Globe Insurance

293 Or. 513 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1982

The other objective, which is clearly discernible, was to protect an injured party from being misled into believing that a limitation period upon his claim is no longer applicable because the insurer is liable for the claim … the death, injury or destruction” is deemed ambiguous for failure to exclude insured persons absolutely, the constructional scales are tipped by reference to the latter two statutes. 3 Their terms, while also not entirely immune

Schramm v. Done

135 Or. 16 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1930

constitutional amendment retroactively applicable to banks organized before its *22 adoption or no legislative effort to bring them under the amendment by providing that certain acts should be deemed a waiver of their constitutional immunity … The law of 1911 is clearly prospective in its language.

State v. Baker

50 Or. 381 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1907

The act in question is not to establish or change the age of majority of females, but for the purpose of promoting good morals and sound policy. … the question that, as the law permits males of full age to enter and remain in a saloon and denies such right to women, it is in violation of the constitutional provision guaranteeing to every citizen equal privileges and immunities

Purdy v. Deere & Co.

355 Or. 204 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 2014

The plaintiffs asserted — and the defendant did not dispute — that, if Rector had been negligent, he and his employer, the Oregon State Police, were immune from liability to the plaintiffs under the exclusive remedy provision … In accordance with their view of the effect of that immunity, the plaintiffs sought various instructions admonishing the jury not to “weigh or consider” Rector’s conduct unless it found that it was the “sole and exclusive

State v. Brown

28 Or. 147 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1895

The trial judge heard their testimony, had an opportunity to observe their manner, and deemed them qualified to sit in the case. … The court in the instructions complained of did not assume even that the facts had been established.

Bert Brundige, LLC v. Dept. of Rev.

368 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 22, 2021

ORS 307.827 establishes a tax exemption for “envi- ronmentally sensitive logging equipment.” … In keeping with those findings and declarations, ORS 307.827 establishes the tax exemption at issue. ORS 307.827 has two subsections.

Hamilton v. Paynter

342 Or. 48 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 7, 2006

Their terms, while also not entirely immune from a larger construction, also make more sense if read to refer to claims against the insured. … Defendants qualify as “person [s] who [made] an advance payment” under ORS 12.155(1), but, under the allegations of the complaint, they did not give timely written notice of the statute of limitations.

Agan v. United States National Bank

227 Or. 619 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1961

To qualify -as beneficiaries of the trusts in question plaintiffs must prove that the settlors intended to create an enforceable equitable interest in the class which plaintiff purport to represent. 1 Restatement of Trusts … But to avoid the horn of the dilemma presented by the rule against perpetuities, plaintiffs argue that the charitable character of the trust so affects the alleged gift to the class that the immunity from the rule against

STATE Ex Rel MADDEN v. CRAWFORD

207 Or. 76 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1956

Under the constitution of this state the governor only is empowered to fill such vacancy by appointment, which appointment shall expire when a successor shall have been duly elected and qualified. … In his specially concurring opinion ( 132 Or 217 ), Chief Justice Coshow clearly and correctly pointed this out.

Parks v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon

347 Or. 374 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 24, 2009

The Court of Appeals was wrong to use that supposed failure as a basis for treating the exclusion of plaintiffs’ decontamination costs as an established legal fact. … That telephone call qualified as “proof of loss” for purposes of such a claim.

State v. Nielsen

316 Or. 611 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1993

That effort demonstrates one of the alternative conditions establishing unavailability of a declarant. See State v. … The parts concerning the two forgeries — parts that defendant asserts on appeal inculpate Rimer alone — not only inculpate Rimer, but also clearly inculpate defendant in the crime charged, forgery.

State v. Pointer

106 Or. 589 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1923

They may have been much qualified by the argument with which they were introduced and by that which followed each of them. … Thus qualified to decide the matter, the court determined that the rights of defendant were not prejudiced by the conduct of counsel.

Pacific Title & Trust Co. v. Sargent

73 Or. 485 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1914

incorporation to discharge any duty, office or position of trust, and any corporation organized under Section 1 of this act shall be known as a trust company; and it shall be lawful for any trust company which shall have qualified … But, if the acts alleged do not come clearly within the prohibition of the statute, its scope will not be extended to include other offenses than those which are clearly described and provided for; and, if there is a fair

Larson v. Heintz Construction Co.

219 Or. 25 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1959

In the absence of contract, warning signs or flagmen would clearly not be required by law at the entrance to this quarry road. … We think that those terms clearly *56 contemplate this kind of obstruction and that the more general terms are to be read as ejusdem generis.

Hickey v. Riley

177 Or. 321 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1945

The constitutional questions which have not been argued have nevertheless had our attention, but as to them the asserted unconstitutionality does not appear so clearly upon the face of the ordinances as to require a departure … Clearly, the ordinance has for its purpose the regulation of a perplexing problem to cities and towns, created largely by the advent of motor vehicles.” In Wilhoit v. City of Springfield, supra ( 237 Mo.

Chapman v. River

100 Or. 43 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1921

“It is a well-settled rule of construction of grants by the legislature to corporations * * that only such powers * * can be exercised under them as are clearly comprehended within the words of the act”: Corvallis v. … The first is, that the council must appoint persons who are qualified, and their record must show the facts.” In Bewley v. Graves, 17 Or. 274, 283 ( 20 Pac. 322, 326 ), Mr.

Whitlock v. State Industrial Accident Commission

233 Or. 166 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1962

The Wests, who the plaintiff alleges were his employers, owned an establishment located on the Mt. *168 Hood Loop Highway known as Summit. House. It is patronized by skiers. … The question presented by this appeal is whether the plaintiff qualifies as an employee under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and is thus entitled to benefits thereunder.

Baisley v. Baisley

15 Or. 183 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 11, 1887

Ison, the regular qualified and acting judge of the Sixth Judicial District of the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, then in session, and having on trial a criminal cause, with a jury impaneled, and a jury drawn from … the fact as claimed; besides, it clearly appears from the journal entry referred to that the court presided over by Judge Bird did not sit at the place designated by law, as provided by section 901 of the Civil Code, and

Bays v. Brown

160 Or. 594 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1938

Shortly he qualified this answer by testifying that in April, 1936, he stopped at the hotel “ for a few days ’ ’ while the above-mentioned action was on trial. … We are clearly satisfied that the plaintiffs’ judgment which was obtained before the institution of the present suit, together with the return of the writ of execution unsatisfied, afforded a sufficient foundation for this

Milwaukie Co. of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Mullen

214 Or. 281 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1958

They establish the minimum standards for the general welfare: “Section 2. Scope. … The mere fact that such a claim of immunity is asserted because of religious convictions is not sufficient to establish its constitutional validity.’ ” In the Baer case, 206 Or at 234 , we also held: “Incorporation of the