Case law

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

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

Ladd v. Holmes

40 Or. 167 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1901

Every elector has the right to have his vote count for all it is worth, in proportion to the whole number of qualified electors desiring to exercise their privilege. … I, § 20, provides that “no law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens. ’ ’ Mr.

Weiss v. Jackson County

9 Or. 470 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1881

Where a matter is clearly, or prima, facie, one of legal cognizance, a party must, in order to maintain an equitable action upon it, state facts sufficient to entitle him to equitable relief, and to show that a perfect remedy … Young, is supervisor within the jurisdiction of the county commissioners, or anything in respect to his being a duly qualified officer or otherwise, except that lie has the word “ supervisor ” following his name in the caption

Cook v. Michael

214 Or. 513 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1958

The requested instruction must clearly, concisely and accurately state the law in question. Severy v. Myrmo, 186 Or 611, 614 , 207 P2d 151 (1949). … In fact, the instructions given were qualified so as to suggest the possibility of an unsubstantial injury.

State v. Stoneman

323 Or. 536 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1996

We agree with the Court of Appeals majority that, without more, that territorial statute did not sufficiently and clearly establish an historical exception within which the statute under review in the present case could be … Miller indicates that legislation is not immunized from Article I, section 8, scrutiny by the mere fact that it regulates expressive material as it does any other commodity: “The city also is wrong when it contends that ‘

McKinney v. Baker

9 Or. 74 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1880

made an assignment of all his property, including that in controversy, for the benefit of all his creditors, and all the creditors of the partnership, under the general assignment law of 1878, to the appellant, who duly qualified … Ve thint this case is clearly within this principle.

Deneff v. Helms

42 Or. 161 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1902

A delivery to an agent is clearly but a delivery to his principal, and the agent’s possession is that of the principal to do with the property as the latter may direct. … Such a gift is not contrary to public policy, and will be upheld when established: Ellis v. Secor, 31 Mich. 185 ( 18 Am. Rep. 178 ).

MacOmber v. Cox

249 Or. 61 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1967

This is clearly stated in the opinion: "It has been held that the owner of property cannot escape liability for a dangerous condition on his property by having an independent contractor assume the duty of constructing or … Some day, belatedly, this court will follow the trend and eliminate the immunity windfall of the prime contractor.

State Ex Rel. Sajo v. Paulus

297 Or. 464 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1984

Qualified voters Article IV, section 1(2)(b) requires petitions to be signed by "qualified voters." … But this eligibility to vote on election day may not necessarily be a sufficient condition for signing a petition, because article IV, section 1(4)(a) clearly contemplates that eligibility as a "qualified voter" can be verified

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Leisure

336 Or. 244 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 26, 2003

We first consider whether the Bar has established that the accused violated any or all of the disciplinary rules and statutes that the Bar has charged her with violating. … One might argue that the reference in the sentence to immediate suspension clearly is at odds with, and necessarily waives, any default period that ORS 9.200(1) provides.

Townley v. Oregon Railroad

33 Or. 323 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1898

Timely objection was made to the introduction of this evidence on the ground that the witness had not shown himself qualified to give an opinion, and after its introduction the defendant moved to strike out for the same reason … As a general proposition, a judgment will not be reversed on account of the improper admission of testimony if the facts sought to be thus proved were clearly established by *330 other evidence, so that it can be seen that

Marriage of Settle

276 Or. 759 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1976

Having decided that the Oregon court qualifies to exercise jurisdiction under the provisions of ORS 109.840(1), we must next turn to ORS 109.780(2) (Section 8(b) of the Uniform Act) to see if the court also is qualified to … Father is unable to find the children until after mother and children have established a residence of long duration in another state; 4.

Harris v. Burr

39 L.R.A. 768 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1898

These authorities illustrate quite clearly the defendants’ position. … In 1855 qualified voters at school meetings were defined to be “ all taxable persons residing in the district of the age of 21 years, and who have resided therein for the period of three months next preceding the time of

Bank of British Columbia v. Page

6 Or. 431 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1877

The intention of the legislature must be ascertained by the established rules of construction of statutes. … Any state may exclude foreign corporations *434 altogether, or it may qualify its consent that they may transact business within its limits by imposing such terms and conditions as its legislature. may deem proper.

State v. Threet

294 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1982

Each of these proceedings is a separate judicial proceeding with clearly defined parties. We believe that separateness is a necessary attribute of a “special statutory proceeding.” … In all of these cases the proceedings were separate from other judicial proceedings and thus qualified as “special statutory proceedings.” *6 A case where we held that an appeal would not lie under ORS 19.010(4) is instructive

State v. Milbradt

305 Or. 621 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 17, 1988

This is clearly recognized in the case of mental capacity.” … Defendant’s attempt to establish an alibi was frustrated because of the indefiniteness of the time of the assaults.

Handley v. Jackson

31 Or. 552 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1897

Let it suffice to say that there is a well-established and clearly-defined equitable jurisdiction which will enable courts of equity to restrain the enforcement of an unconscionable judgment or decree procured through fraud … However, the rule in nearly, if not all, those jurisdictions has latterly been mmh qualified, and disabused of its ancient rigor.

W. D. Miller Construction Co. v. Donald M. Drake Co.

221 Or. 249 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1960

Miller had not qualified as an expert. … Clearly it was not competent as a copy of the files of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, because not certified as required by the statute.

Lauderback v. Multnomah County

111 Or. 681 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1924

L., provides for the purpose of the act the county surveyor, roadmaster or any duly qualified deputy or assistant of whom an oath of office shall be required by law, shall be considered sworn upon qualifying for the duties … The affidavit, while it does not use the same language as found in the statute, clearly shows that one of the notices was posted at the place of holding the County Court. This is not questioned.