Case law

State v. Harris

Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 19, 2017

To be sure, in later cases, the Supreme Court first qualified and then overruled its decision in Roberts. See United States v. … But it did nothing to qualify that requirement. As did the court in Copeland, we acknowledge that there is phrasing in Moore that is indeed sweeping.

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.

Cox v. Royal Tribe

60 L.R.A. 620 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1903

His duty requires him to go to the place where the dead or wounded person is, and summon six qualified persons to serve as jurors; whose duty it becomes, on being sworn, to inquire who the person was, and when, where, and … As to this we are clearly of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence adduced to justify the court in letting the ease go to the jury.

Supove v. Densmoor Et Ux

225 Or. 365 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1961

Later Supove was recommended as a person qualified to draw the plans for the building. A conference was held in Supove’s office between Supove, Sunderland and defendant and the cost of the building discussed. … Clearly, the defendant failed to sustain the burden nf proving fraud or mutual mistake, and the court erred in granting reformation.

Welch v. U. S. Bancorp Realty & Mortgage Trust

286 Or. 673 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1979

The real use of the term reasonable certainty seems to be to screen out an issue from the jury when the court has concluded that the evidence, taken as a whole, is clearly insufficient to establish the fact sought to be proved … To paraphrase, *705 the court should intervene only when it can say that the evidence is clearly insufficient to establish the claim of lost profits.

Smith v. Rubel

140 Or. 422 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1932

It is true that an occasional excerpt may be lifted from a case which, in the absence of its qualifying surroundings, lends some support to this claim. … If that is true, it then follows that none of Pierce & Company’s subsequent actions bound the defendant, and, therefore, Pierce & Company’s right to the proceeds of the supposed sale becomes the more clearly established.

State v. Harris

Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 19, 2017

To be sure, in later cases, the Supreme Court first qualified and then overruled its decision in Roberts. See United States v. … But it did nothing to qualify that requirement. As did the court in Copeland, we acknowledge that there is phrasing in Moore that is indeed sweeping.

In Re Murray's Estate

173 Or. 209 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1943

It clearly appears that Mrs. Murray, the testatrix, consulted Mr. O. D. Eby as her attorney concerning the making of a will. Mrs. Ellen M. Jones, who was Mr. Eby’s niece and stenographer, testified that she knew Mrs. … Opposing the evidence of the proponent, we have the testimony of eight well qualified witnesses, most of whom had no interest in the result.

Hubbard v. Hubbard

7 Or. 42 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1879

The respondent was thereupon appointed executor of the same, and immediately qualified and entered upon the duties of his trust. … If either of these facts should be fully established by the evidence, it may be well said it is in no respect the will of Joseph B. Hubbard.

State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. England

292 Or. 545 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1982

Persons qualifying as “Indian custodians” under the ICWA are entitled to notice and certain other rights in proceedings to terminate placement. 25 USC § 1912 . … Since petitioner did not receive Sonja from a parent, she cannot qualify under that provision.

State v. Marshall

350 Or. 208 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 14, 2011

The word does not, for example, clearly refer only to violence or complete physical domination of the other person. … The 1999 amendment does show that the legislature did not intend to permit every kind or degree of force to qualify as “forcible compulsion.”

State v. Branson

82 Or. 377 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1916

. *380 To clearly comprehend defendant’s contentions, it is necessary to make a brief statement of the evidence submitted by the prosecution. ' William Booth, the victim of the alleged homicide, was the husband of the defendant … It is also contended that the testimony in regard to the comparison of the “rats” was incompetent, because the witnesses did not qualify as experts, and, if not experts, the jury was the proper authority to-make the inspection

Lynd v. ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY

276 Or. 341 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1976

Clearly, much better evidence must have been available to this defendant to establish one way or another whether it is the corporation responsible for manufacturing this saw. … Plaintiff’s evidence clearly demonstrated that, as a result of this design, the insert could tilt and come in contact with the blades of the cutting head.

Real Good Food Store, Inc. v. FIRST NAT. BK. OF Or.

276 Or. 1057 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1976

But the merchants' need for a business service is not an "unusual circumstances" which would justify depriving banks of their freedom to bargain for immunity from liability. … The majority opinion does not explain what is necessary to constitute a "public bailee"; it seems to imply that any business with powerful bargaining strength qualifies.

Rennie v. Freeway Transport

294 Or. 319 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1982

The stated general rule is clearly applicable here. … Severance of particular issues for separate trial, for example, is a well established procedural device. See ORCP 53 B.

Snashall Et Ux v. Jewell Et Ux

228 Or. 130 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1961

However, we interpret the evidence as establishing a general building scheme for the entire tract. … The evidence clearly supports this assumption. The first deed from Nosier and Powell to defendants contained essentially the same covenants as expressed in the other deeds previously executed.

Dilger v. School District 24CJ

222 Or. 108 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 25, 1960

May the teacher, with immunity, put a small child on the sidewalk and point the child in the direction of the school? … Does it mean that only those churches or sects who are either sufficiently opulent or ardent enough to maintain an organized school will qualify?

Brandrup v. Recontrust Co., N.A.

353 Or. 668 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2013

However, the legislature did not clearly express that intent. … The accuracy of that assertion depends on whether MERS qualifies as an agent of those entities for purposes of Oregon law.

Lefler v. Lefler

218 Or. 231 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1959

It thus clearly appears that due process is preserved and that the defendant in Tennessee had his day in court and the judgment only was rendered against him after he had an opportunity to offer proof. … The court’s words were, “Such immunity might be bought cheaply.” The decision did not go unchallenged.

State v. Iseli

366 Or. 151 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 21, 2020

In sum, a rul- ing that a statement qualifies under the “excited utterance” hearsay exception is reviewed for legal error. Id. … At this juncture, the text does not clearly reveal how expansively we should construe the “process” component.