Case law

Inman v. Ollson

213 Or. 56 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1958

.-010. (1) Thereafter, on August 5, 1954, and within 30 days after posting these notices, they complied with subsection (2) of OES 517.010 by establishing the boundary marking posts. … possession reposing in the defendants, then it was clearly in error.

Green Mountain Log Co. v. Columbia & Nehalem River Railroad

141 Or. 188 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1932

On direct examination, the witness, after being qualified, should have been asked in substance whether he knew of any general custom or usage in the Columbia river district during the time in question, relative to the method … before the Public Service Commission relative to custom or usage in scaling logs and such testimony was contrary to that given in the instant case, the record in the rate case might be used for impeachment purposes, but clearly

Cousineau v. Cousineau

155 Or. 184 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1936

Lynde must be restricted or qualified so as to cause it not to overrule the decision in the Barber case. *190 * * * We think the conclusion is inevitable that the Lynde case cannot be held to have overruled the Barber case … An insolvent husband would become immune from the alimony decree if such was the law.

Second Northwestern Finance Corp. v. Mansfield

121 Or. 236 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1927

We think this evidence was admissible for the purpose of establishing that there was no consideration for the note sued upon. … In the instructions the court clearly assumed that capital stock of a corporation was a good consideration for a promissory note, and instructed the jury clearly that unless they found that the facts represented by the defendant

Dorsciak v. Gladden

246 Or. 233 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1967

The state's own testimony, therefore, would support a finding that the confession was induced by an express or implied promise of immunity from prosecution. … The evidence produced by the petitioner and the state in the post conviction hearing clearly establishes the reason the petitioner entered the plea of guilty to rape of his daughters.

State v. Taylor

364 Or. 364 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 7, 2019

However, defendant did not offer those studies in the trial court or otherwise create a record to establish the factual premise of his argument. … As presented, we are unwilling to reconsider our precedent on the issue of death-qualified juries. 2.

Bonner v. American Golf Corp. of California

372 Or. 814 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 31, 2024

It is defendants’ burden to establish that we must disavow our earlier cases. See State v. … In Fulmer, the court had found that the plaintiff had pleaded facts sufficient to establish a common-law claim for premises liability because, “it is well-established in Oregon that a proprietor’s obligation to make its premises

State v. Fish

321 Or. 48 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1995

Hennessey, 195 Or 355 , 245 P2d 875 (1952) (immunity statute compelled individual to testify in exchange for grant of immunity). 4 Our compulsion analysis in this case focuses on a statute, namely ORS 813.136. … Accordingly, we conclude that at least those aspects of the field sobriety tests are clearly “testimonial” under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution.

Gladhart v. Oregon Vineyard Supply Co.

332 Or. 226 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2001

Under the interpretive methodology established by this court in PGE v. … Moreover, by 1977, the legislature clearly had demonstrated its ability to express a discovery rule in numerous other limitation statutes.

Palmberg v. City of Astoria

112 Or. 353 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1924

As measured by the rule so long established by these precedents, the plaintiff in his reply failed to traverse material allegations in the defendant’s answer. … The reason of the rule about *378 conjunctive denials is clearly pointed out by Mr. Justice McBride in White v. East Side Mill Co. Summing up: 1.

Rodgers Et Ux v. Reimann Et Ux

227 Or. 62 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1961

The evidence in the case at bar is not sufficient to establish such reliance by the plaintiffs. Dr. … The scope of a third party beneficiary’s rights and remedies in Oregon is not clearly defined.

State Highway Commission v. Goodwin

208 Or. 514 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1956

We there said that this provision of the Constitution carries with it “a waiver of immunity on the part of the state to actions prosecuted for damages for its violation.” 196 Or at 147 . … It is true that the action cannot be maintained at all unless a taking in the constitutional sense is established.

Pickard v. Oregon Senior Citizens, Inc.

238 Or. 359 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1964

Plaintiffs’ complaint does not clearly disclose the theory upon which the suit or action was brought. … Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing the breach and its substantiality. Plaintiffs contend that defendant’s adoption of a self insurance program as a substitute for insurance *364 coverage through.

State v. Savan

148 Or. 423 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1934

It is not aimed at disqualification, but is exercised upon qualified jurors as matter of favor to the challenger. … Clearly at this stage of the proceeding the excusing of a juror was a matter that addressed itself to the sound discretion of the court. The record does not disclose why the juror was excused.

Buddenberg v. Southcoast Lumber

316 Or. 180 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 6, 1993

In this case, claimant established a permanent partial disability by showing a partial loss of use of his feet. … Second, the statute that authorizes claims for aggravation, ORS 656.273, clearly treats such a claim as independent of the prior adjudicated claim.

State v. Chinn

231 Or. 259 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1962

The legislature has, in effect, said that no matter *283 how clearly the evidence in the accused's possession would establish his guilt, the enforcement officers cannot reach it, even with a warrant, unless it is a fruit … State courts do not appear to have adopted the federal rule in sufficient number to establish a trend.

State v. Schluer

59 Or. 18 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 31, 1911

The power was not conferred without the right to use it to the fullest extent, unless restrained by some exception qualifying the terms of the grant and defeating the defendant’s major premise. … This exception is found clearly defined in the clause: “But such municipality shall within its limits be subject to the provisions of the local option law.”

Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald People's Utility District

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.

State v. Harris

339 Or. 157 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 18, 2005

And we have found no statute that clearly makes recidivism an offense element in such circumstances.” *165 Id. at 230 (internal citations omitted). … Second, prior convictions remain, at least for now, a viable exception to the requirement noted above, due in large part to the jury’s function in establishing those convictions. 7 Finally, the jury’s importance in establishing

Ferguson v. Holborn

106 Or. 566 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1922

The conduct of Anna Ferguson in qualifying as executrix and bringing the suit for the construction of the will did not amount to an election to take under the will only. … The truth of this was established by the decree in that suit, which has become final: Rehfield v. Winters, 62 Or. 299, 306 ( 125 Pac. 289 ).