Case law

Bundy v. NuStar GP LLC

371 Or. 220 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 7, 2023

Meanwhile, he offered one suggestion: “There is one suggestion that I would make, though, and that is that the Supreme Court didn’t clearly spell out the procedure for a worker who wants to pursue this kind of … True, in Horton, this court overruled the remedy-clause analysis announced in Smothers. 359 Or at 218-19 (expressly over- ruling Smothers and noting that “Smothers clearly erred in 244

Tracy v. Juanto

103 Or. 416 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1922

Durbin, supra: “To be admissible, they must be such as reflect light on or qualify the possession itself, or be so connected therewith as to illustrate its character,” and as illustrative of that rule, tbe court said, “Thus … It is true that the declarations of an agent are insufficient to establish the agency. But the doctrine of agency has nothing to do with the principle con *422 trolling here.

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

Weith v. Klein

136 Or. 201 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1931

Confronted with this situation we held that the complaint was immune from attack by demurrer, but that the cause should be remanded to the circuit court so that amendments could be made to the pleading which would justify … In the instant appeal, while it may be doubtful whether the complaint alleges any facts cognizable in a court of equity, its recitals clearly constitute a cause of action, possibly seven such causes.

State v. Young

74 Or. 399 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1915

in the statute is, generally speaking, to take or exclude from the operation of the statute certain things or subjects which would otherwise be included therein (see Bouvier’s Law Dictionary), and, where the exception is clearly … Ed. 791 ): “The office of a proviso, generally, is either to except something from the enacting clause, or to qualify or restrain its generality, or to exclude some possible ground of misinterpretation of it, as extending

Castleman v. Stryker

107 Or. 48 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1923

commonly known as trade talk, dealer’s talk, seller’s statements, or puffing, do not amount to actionable misrepresentations where the parties deal at arm’s-length, and have equal means of information *58 and are equally qualified … The facts constituting the fraud must be clearly and conclusively established. Circumstances or mere suspicion will not warrant the conclusion of fraud.

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.

Rajneesh Foundation International v. McGreer

303 Or. 139 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1987

Under Oregon law, a default judgment establishes all material facts alleged in the complaint. State ex rel Nilsen v. Cushing, 253 Or 262, 265 , 453 P2d 945 (1969). … more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified

Shaw v. Proffitt

57 Or. 192 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1910

Because of an erroneous survey, establishing the grade, water would not flow through the part first dug. … The word “right” denotes, among other things, “property,” “interest,” “power,” “prerogative,” “immunity,” and “privilege,” and in law is most frequently applied to property in its restricted sense.

Bevan v. Templeman

145 Or. 279 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1933

The uncontradicted documentary evidence clearly shows that F. C. … The witness may have been qualified to testify as to the rental value of the premises, but that testimony would not establish that he or Mrs. Talbott were the owners of the personal property in question. 5.

Ogden v. Bureau of Labor

299 Or. 98 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1985

We understand these findings to mean that the employer did not simply choose the older of two qualified applicants for a single opening. … 659.010(2)(a) in order to protect the complainant against the effects of the unlawful practice, but that the “computation assumes that the entire amount of damages became due on the date of applicant’s rejection, which is clearly

City of Coos Bay v. Aerie No. 538 of Fraternal Order of Eagles

179 Or. 83 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1946

, as fully as though this Charter expressly stated each of those rights, powers, privileges and immunities. … A.) as follows: “For the purposes of this act and unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning: “ (a) The words ‘ alcoholic beverages ’ mean and include any fortified wine, wines or similar fermented vinous liquor

West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc.

360 Or. 650 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 8, 2016

Oregon Auto’s duty to defend was owed to anyone who qualified as an insured under the terms of the policy. … The allegations in the complaint, however, did not clearly indicate whether the injury would be covered.

Imbrie v. Hartrampf

100 Or. 589 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 31, 1921

It is a well-established rule that where an estate in fee is given in one clause of a will in clear and explicit terms, the interest which the devisee thus obtains in the land cannot be taken away or diminished, by any subsequent … It is suggested by the provisions of the twelfth paragraph of the will the estate of Ralph Imbrie may end if he should die without lineal descendants, children or grandchildren, and therefore it is a determinable or qualified

Patterson v. Howe

102 Or. 275 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1921

The question of whether another physician, a witness in the case, is qualified to testify, is one of law for the court to decide. 12. 13. … Whitney and the answers to be given by him, was clearly an invasion of the province of the jury.

Guaranty & Loan Co. v. Ruff

120 Or. 613 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1927

The evidence clearly , establishes that at the time the instrument between defendant and Kaser was executed the latter *619 represented to the former that there were no encumbrances against the land, except the mortgage in … The evidence clearly indicates a deliberate attempt on the part of Kaser to repudiate his promise to pay defendant $3,000.

Taylor v. Multnomah County Deputy Sheriff's Retirement Board

265 Or. 445 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 17, 1973

, plaintiff was excluded from participation by the amendment. *449 Defendants first contend that plaintiff performed no services as a law enforcement officer and, therefore, did not qualify under Ordinance No. 25. … However, we believe that plaintiff did establish a contractual right to participate in the pension plan. The adoption of the pension plan was an offer for a unilateral contract.

Birnie v. La Grande

78 Or. 531 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1915

It recites that since the time of the f ormer proceedings the city has adopted a new charter establishing the commission managerial form of government, which provides that all rights, privileges and immunities held and enjoyed … Justice Burnett clearly points out the powers and privileges of the city in proceedings of this character.

Wheeler v. Huston

288 Or. 467 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1980

Absent such a motion, a verdict for the plaintiff is immune from attack on the ground that the trial court submitted an allegation of injury which was not proved. … In the absence of such a request, a verdict for the defendant is immune from attack by the plaintiff on the ground that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that the defendant’s liability had been establish *481 ed

Koos v. Roth

293 Or. 670 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1982

The common law decisions were to the contrary, although exactly what rule of liability they established is disputed. … If there is a duty on a person to prevent his fire *684 escaping to his neighbor’s land, and the fire does in fact escape, clearly he has been in ‘neglect’ of his duty.”