Case law

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.

Outdoor Media Dimensions, Inc. v. Department of Transportation

340 Or. 275 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2006

Robertson, * * * this court established a framework for evaluating whether a law violates Article I, section 8. … “Pray for Peace,” for example, would qualify as an on-premises sign for a church. 340 Or at 293.

Hull v. Angus

60 Or. 95 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1911

Is the note in question negotiable, so as to prevent plaintiffs from urging its cancellation as against the defendant Ferguson; or,' in other words, is his title, to the note such as to render him immune against the- *101 … He failed to establish the plant at all, and the city sued on his bond to recover the full sum mentioned.

Koch v. Southern Pacific Company

266 Or. 335 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1973

There are also situations where a jury clearly is equally qualified without help from opinion testimony such as offered here. … It is the area between the clearly qualified and the clearly unqualified where the trial judge should be granted a certain latitude of decision in excluding or receiving expert opinion testimony." ( 259 Or. at 260 , 486 P

Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. v. Century Home Components, Inc.

261 Or. 333 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1971

Justice Howell's dissent, we agree that the intentions of plaintiffs' counsel were not clearly articulated. … The authorities cited by the majority involve cases where liability was established, and the case was remanded for a trial only on the issue of damages.

Pitts v. King

141 Or. 23 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1932

There is no competent evidence to establish a conspiracy. The pleading and proof is insufficient to take the alleged defamatory matter out of the privilege class as to defendant H. H. Bang. … “The general rule in America is the same as in England as respects judges, but as to parties, counsel and witnesses is generally qualified to the extent that the defamatory words must be applicable, pertinent or relevant.

State v. Burleson

342 Or. 697 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 1, 2007

But the qualifying phrase in ORS 132.340, ‘when required by the grand jury,’ is not meaningless. … It reflects the historic independence of the grand jury’s role from that of the prosecutor about which grand jurors should be clearly informed.

State v. Kellaher

90 Or. 538 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1919

If a written law creating an office and prescribing the term contains an express provision or clearly manifests an intent that an unexpired term shall be-first completed then the resignation of an elected incumbent leaves … because his successor had been elected and qualified.

City of Portland v. Bartlett

369 Or. 606 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 28, 2022

As set out above, ORS 192.314 establishes the right of every person to inspect a public record “except as otherwise expressly provided by ORS 192.338, 192.345 and 192.355.” … In a city, not more than 15 percent of the qualified voters may be required to propose legislation by the initiative, and not more than 10 percent of the qualified voters may be required to order a referendum on legislation

Roblin v. Shantz

210 Or. 371 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 15, 1957

Eoblin qualify. That the testator, on the day on which he executed his will, requested the appointment of a conservator does not persuade us that he lacked testamentary capacity. … All agree that the burden of establishing undue influence is upon the contestant.

Johnson v. CRADDOCK

228 Or. 308 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1961

The foregoing rule in its particular application to the instant matter is well and clearly stated as follows in 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3d ed, Horack, 1943), 448-449: “Beferential and qualifying words and phrases … But where the sense of the entire act requires that the qualifying words apply to several preceding or even succeeding sections, the word or phrase will not be restricted to its immediate antecedent.

Federal Cartridge Corp. v. Helstrom

202 Or. 557 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1954

The principal question for decision on this appeal is whether a nonsigner of the fair trade agreements entered into by plaintiff, who knowingly advertises and sells a fair-traded commodity may claim an absolute immunity from … However, from what has been said, it is obvious that at least until July 14, 1952, when the McGuire Act was adopted, there clearly was no valid law in this state which would bind nonsigners to these fair trade agreements.

Klovdahl v. Springfield

81 Or. 168 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1916

Section 68 empowers the council, whenever it deems it expedient, to establish or alter the grade of or to improve or repair any street or alley, or any part thereof, and says that this authority includes the power to improve … The charter clearly distinguishes between the building of sidewalks and the improvements of a street by grading or graveling.

In Re Jaffee

319 Or. 172 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1994

We agree that reasonable persons — as the dissenters clearly are — could reach a different conclusion than do we. … But applicant’s burden is to establish that certain facts are “highly probable”; it is not to establish those facts beyond any reasonable doubt. This case has been on a yo-yo before the Board.

Irish & Swartz Stores v. First National Bank

220 Or. 362 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1960

It clearly warns the depositor that it is his duty to “make sure the bag has entered the chute.” … The clause clearly expresses the idea that the risk of loss shall be upon the depositor.

State v. MacBale

353 Or. 789 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 25, 2013

notion that the public is interested only in evidence actually considered by the trier of fact in arriving at a decision, the court in O’Leary implied that the public would have a right of access to certain proceedings that clearly … First, the cases establish that, although Article I, section 10, is written in broad terms, it does not apply to all aspects of court proceedings.

State Ex Rel. Nilsen v. Lee

251 Or. 284 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1968

A sale clearly was attempted some time after Eddie left. However, Eddie did in fact return and when he did defendants relinquished control of the business to him. … Under well-established principles of the law of agency defendants can be held liable individually upon contracts entered into without disclosing the agency.

SPRINGFIELD UTILITY BD. v. Emerald PUD

339 Or. 631 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2005

The parties agree, as do we, that there is no question that the board qualifies as a "municipality" within the meaning of ORS 758.400(2) and, consequently, also qualifies as a "person" within the meaning of ORS 758.450(2) … qualifies as a "municipality" that is excluded from the statutory term "public utility" in that context.

Little Nestucca Road Co. v. Tillamook County

31 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1897

dominant legislative power only called into exercise by the enactment of a valid statute, and when a party asserts a right to seize land previously appropriated to a public use, he must sustain his claim by producing a statute clearly … PL and Prac., 614), and a condition which qualifies or defeats the plaintiff’s suit, being a condition subsequent, may be safely "ignored by him in the pleading: 4 Ency. Pl. and Prac., 628.

Miller v. Lampert

340 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2006

He told the court: “Clearly, based on [petitioner’s] history, if you want to apply that statute, you can do it, but I ask if you consider doing that to use the 75 months as the base sentence.” … Although later cases have recast Almendarez-Torres as establishing only a “prior conviction” exception to the rule in Apprendi , the decision in Almendarez-Torres , read on its own terms, stands for a far broader proposition