Case law

Stone Logging & Contracting Co. v. International Woodworkers

171 Or. 13 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1943

A. §§ 158 and 159, quoted supra, that it would constitute an unfair labor practice for an employer to discourage membership in a labor organization unless its action is rendered immune to the condemnation of the statute by … Clearly, it is the task of an administrative body to determine whether or not the employer has been guilty of an unfair labor practice by aiding the union to secure the required majority for representation, yet the absence

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.”

State v. Moore/Coen

349 Or. 371 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 16, 2010

This court previously has stated that OEC 404(4) “clearly qualifies as an evidentiary change in the law that favors only the prosecution by making the conviction of a defendant more likely.” See State v. … The holding in Wardius , however, did not establish a constitutional rule that a defendant and the state must be treated identically in all respects.” Id. at 686-87 (internal citation omitted).

Conn v. Oregon Electric Ry. Co.

137 Or. 75 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1930

With respect to that contention, the court said: ..“.The rule prevails very.generally and is.firmly established in our law that it is the duty of a traveler, *82 whether on foot or in some vehicle, to look and listen before … L., “Railroads,” pp. 1056,1057, seems to the writer to be clearly applicable to the situation here presented: “All the authorities support the proposition that where the evidence conclusively shows that a person injured at

Walter v. Scherzinger

339 Or. 408 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 13, 2005

Still, the CCSL clearly was intended to cover only those custodians in the District’s employ. … Read together, the statutes discussed above establish the breadth of the civil service board’s authority over custodial positions within a qualifying school district.

Hughes v. PeaceHealth

344 Or. 142 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 22, 2008

Article I, section 20, provides: “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.” … Act of August 14, 1848, to Establish the Territorial Government of Oregon, § 14, in General Laws of Oregon, pp 75-76 ( Deady 1845 -1864).

Li v. State

338 Or. 376 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 14, 2005

Here, the spark that ignited this controversy was the county’s decision to issue marriage licenses to otherwise-qualified same-sex couples. … Clearly, the official’s authority to conduct and decide the contested case was pivotal.

City of Klamath Falls v. Winters

289 Or. 747 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1980

Court in cases involving constitutional questions, but omitting to make similar provision for the appeal of other municipal court cases involving violations of city ordinances (except to the circuit court), the legislature clearly … It is well established that there is no constitutional right to an appeal. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 77 , 92 S.Ct. 862 , 31 L.Ed.2d 36 (1972); State v. Endsley, 214 Or. 537, 539 , 331 P.2d 338 (1958).

Lewis v. Worldwide Imports, Inc.

238 Or. 580 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1964

of the sale. *582 The record clearly discloses sufficient evidence to establish a fraudulent representation under circumstances warranting the imposition of punitive damages. … “The usual expert is qualified by proof of his familiarity with the property and with other property in the neighborhood, his experience in the business, his familiarity with the state of the market and of sales of similar

Houston v. Maunula

121 Or. 552 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 24, 1927

These instructions clearly state the law in this jurisdiction regarding liability for negligence and the result of contributory negligence. … "We believe that a jury is better qualified to pass upon the facts under proper instructions than is this court in a case of this kind.

Oregon State Bar v. John H. Miller Formerly Executive Estate Planners, Inc.

235 Or. 341 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1963

However, it was clearly established that the estate planning business was carried on as a distinct enterprise offering service to clients irrespective of their insurance needs. … Decree modified. ① ORS 9.160 “Except for the right reserved to litigants by ORS 9.320 to prosecute or defend a cause in person, no person ahgn practice law or represent himself as qualified to practice law unless he is an

State Ex Rel. Acocella v. Allen

288 Or. 175 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1979

No one contends that the Public Defender is the only lawyer in Lane County qualified to represent the relators on appeal. … ORS 138.500(2) does not say who carries the burden to establish or negate the necessity and materiality of a requested segment.

State v. Wyatt

331 Or. 335 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 1, 2000

However, an examination of the briefing in those cases establishes that a preliminary question — preservation—was not at issue in either case. That preliminary question is present here. … O’Brien, 320 Or 729, 737 , 891 P2d 1307 (1995) (rules pertaining to preservation of error in trial courts are intended to advance goals such as ensuring that positions of parties are presented clearly to initial tribunal

Call v. Linn

112 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1924

This witness qualified so as to enable him to *11 testify as to what the value of the lambs was at the time the sale was made. … contract — if the plaintiff is entitled to prevail, and that is a question of fact for you to determine — between what he received upon the open market and what the contract states he should receive. ’ ’ This instruction clearly

Anderson v. Aupperle

51 Or. 556 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1908

It would be an index of her general conduct as to civility or rudeness, and might be material on the question of damages; but it was not offered -specifically for that purpose, as the remark of the court clearly indicates … But whether the unchastity of Viletha Thurman at and prior to the time of the alleged séduction may be established by evidence of her general reputation for virtue and chastity, as contended by defendant’s counsel in the

In re the Marriage of Matar

353 Or. 446 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 18, 2013

“(5)(a) If a support order provides for the support or maintenance of a child attending school and the child qualifies as a child attending school, unless good cause is found for the distribution of the payment to be made … ORS 25.280 provides, in part: “In any judicial or administrative proceeding for the establishment or modification of a child support obligation *** the amount of support determined by the formula established under ORS 25.275

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Schenck

318 Or. 402 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1994

His denial of the motion to disqualify is sufficient to establish a wilful violation of Canon 3C(1). … In the Porter case, however, the record does not establish that the Judge gave the issue of his disqualification under Canon 3C(1) adequate, if any, consideration, although his recusal clearly was required after the judge

State v. Wagner

305 Or. 115 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1988

What, for instance, will qualify as a “thing of value” for purposes of ORS 163.095(1)(a) and (b)? Cf. State v. … 1 The statutory test is further qualified.

SAIF v. Ward

369 Or. 384 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 24, 2022

There are two steps involved to determine whether an individual qualifies as a “subject worker.” The first step is to determine whether the individual qualifies as a worker. … To resolve the question of statutory construction before us, we follow the established statutory interpretation framework laid out in PGE v.

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