Case law

Smejkal v. Rice

273 Or. 687 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1975

The pleadings in that action are clearly available for that purpose but the proof is not limited to them. … Also, at page 580, § 11.20: “In order to resolve such ¡an ambiguity [in a *698 verdict] the proponent of the former judgment may put in evidence any parts of the former record and oral testimony of a qualified observer (extrinsic

Yamhill County v. Ludwick

294 Or. 778 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 3, 1983

Lintz, 101 Ariz 448, 420 P2d 923, 927 (1966), the Arizona Supreme Court considered the term “legally established” lot: “It is generally recognized that the act of recording one’s subdivision plat legally establishes each … The statutes in force at the time Hemstreet sold the tracts in question clearly required that the subdivision be approved and the plat be recorded before any lots could be sold. ORS 92.016, 92.025.

State v. Farrar

309 Or. 132 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1990

The district attorney’s decision not to pursue plea negotiations with defendant did not deny him equal privileges and immunities. … ORS 135.815 establishes the scope of discovery the state is required to provide a defendant.

Cole v. Seaside

80 Or. 73 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1916

It was decided by this court', however, that owing to the fact that the local option law contained penal provisions, it was a criminal law within the meaning of the constitutional provision quoted above, and hence was immune … The city was clearly without power to assume jurisdiction as it attempted, in the absence of a legislative surrender of the state’s prerogative, over the highway in question.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Ellis

356 Or. 691 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2015

See 356 Or at ___ n 45 (noting requirements for immunity or nonprosecution agreement). … It was the document production itself—not necessarily the accuseds’ participation in the production—that most clearly had potential adverse consequences to the Daltry and Samper.

Equitable Savings & Loan Ass'n v. State Tax Commission

251 Or. 70 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1968

Plaintiff has been qualified to do business in Idaho since 1906. … State of Oregon are designed to allocate to the State of Oregon on a fair and equitable basis a proportion of such income earned from sources both within and without the state. * * *” [1957 c. 632 § 4] The above statute clearly

Hall v. May Department Stores Co.

292 Or. 131 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1981

Two other charges made by plaintiff have no independent force to establish this tort. … But in this case we have found no other conduct that could qualify as this tort.

Sproul v. Gilbert

226 Or. 392 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1961

If any interference by the transferor is prohibited, the transferee’s interest is clearly a leasehold. … Plaintiffs’ claim of immunity on the ground that they are instrumentalities of the federal government can not be sustained.

State ex rel. v. Siemens

68 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1913

It does not establish any procedure or specify any authority by which this value can be determined. Manifestly that is one of the matters committed to the judgment of the public custodian of funds. … process or proceeding before or by any inferior court, officer, or tribunal may have the decision or determination thereof reviewed for error therein, as in this chapter prescribed, and not otherwise. ’ ’ This language clearly

Wallace & Co. v. Ferguson

70 Or. 306 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1914

The Century Dictionary says this word means: “ To determine, settle; to fix, establish or prescribe authoritatively.” … In the first place, the Constitution of Missouri states that: “No bill except general appropriation bills * * shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title.”

State v. Gonzalez

373 Or. 248 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2025

As we have said, the legislature’s enactment of a particular penalty does not itself establish constitutional proportionality—the courts ultimately must decide whether penalties exceed constitutional limits. State v. … a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature

State v. Cram

176 Or. 577 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1945

Misc. 633, 16 A. (2d) 80, the court said: “To subject a person against his will to a blood test is an assault and battery, and clearly an invasion of his personal privacy. … But if we admit such an encroachment *607 upon the personal immunity of an individual where in principle can we stop?

School District No. 17 v. Powell

203 Or. 168 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1955

, by vote of the duly qualified electors within the district and proclamation as provided by law” (OES 33.710). … The petitioner alleged that School District No. 17, Sherman County, was so created and established as a municipal corporation.

Wolfgang v. Henry Thiele Catering Co.

128 Or. 433 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1929

Even a clearly established negligence may not of itself be a sufficient ground for refusing relief, if it appears that the other party has not been prejudiced thereby. … Even a clearly established negligence may not, of itself, be a sufficient ground for refusing relief, if it appears that the other party has not been prejudiced thereby.”

State v. Bowman

373 Or. 213 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2025

Rule 703 in turn, together with Rule 702, describe special rules that govern the testimony of a qualified expert. … But, Rule 602 notwithstanding, it is unnecessary to endorse that expanded concept of “personal knowledge” to conclude that the evidence code clearly per- mits experts to testify to a matter within the scope of their “scientific

State v. Clemente-Perez

357 Or. 745 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 17, 2015

The court rejected defendant’s remaining argument that he qualified for the “place of residence” exception as provided in ORS 166.250(2)(b). Id. at 152-58 . … He argues that, had the legislature intended to circumscribe the exception to the bounds of a person’s residential structure, the legislature could have used words that would clearly express such a limitation.

Klutschkowski v. PeaceHealth

354 Or. 150 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 26, 2013

He did not regard them as absolute in the sense of being immune from change or limitation by the legislature. See Albert W. … Lash, The Origins of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Part I: “Privileges and Immunities” as an Antebellum Term of Art, 98 Geo LJ 1241, 1253 (2010); David Schuman, The Right to “Equal Privileges and Immunities”: A State

Coos County v. State

303 Or. 173 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1987

The state has waived its immunity to suits brought to determine title to real property. … In addition, the county judge clearly has the power to convey land, and it was through his failure to direct the tax collector to remove Spaulding from the tax rolls that both Fischer and Spaulding were misled.

Bailey v. Rhodes, Adm.

202 Or. 511 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1954

It is well established in this state that if a guest voluntarily rides in an automobile driven by one who he knows, or in the exercise of due care should know, is so intoxicated as to incapacitate him from safely and prudently … Such testimony invades the province of the jury. *524 In the instant case all facts upon which the police officer based his opinion were clearly presented by the evidence: the curve in the highway, the marks on the gravel

SAIF Corp. v. Walker

330 Or. 102 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 16, 2000

As its text clearly demonstrates, the 1995 version of ORS 656.273(1) requires something different: Proof, based upon medical evidence supported by objective findings, of a worsening of the underlying condition itself, not … On remand, the Board must weigh the facts pertaining to all the elements of an aggravation claim under ORS 656.273(1) (1995) — including causation — to determine whether claimant qualifies for an aggravation award.