Case law

Dethlefs v. Hyster Co.

295 Or. 298 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1983

Where the finder of fact cannot determine from the evidence whether or not the work environment was a cause of the disease condition, the claimant has clearly not carried the burden of proving compensability. “2. … Where the weight of the medical evidence establishes that exposures both on and off the job bore some causal relationship to the workers’ condition, the claimant can carry the required burden if the evidence also establishes

Richards v. City of Portland

121 Or. 340 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1927

Ordinarily, the jurisdiction of a municipality ceases at its boundaries and for it to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction its power to do so must be clearly expressed: Dunlap et al. v. … or agreement for the purchase, condemnation, ownership, construction or operation by the city of any public utility shall be entered into by the council without first submitting such proposed contract or agreement to the qualified

Hill v. Carlstrom

216 Or. 300 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1959

This method of assignment is clearly in violation of Bule 16 of this Court. In fact, it does not point out succinctly and clearly wherein the court is claimed to have erred, as required. … However, it appears defendant did move for a directed verdict on the general ground that plaintiff had failed to establish his case.

State Highway Commission v. Nunes

233 Or. 547 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1963

Even if Nunes had given testimony on these refinements necessary to properly apply the capitalization, he was not qualified to express an opinion in that respect. … The basis for this restrictive rule *562 appears more clearly in other cases.

State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Woodrich

279 Or. 31 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1977

The defense was clearly defined in England in 1843 by MNaghten’s Case, 8 Eng Rep 718, and established in Oregon in 1884 by State of Oregon v. Murray, 11 Or 413 , 5 P 55 . … In 1910 this court held for the first time that "[a] qualified physician may be allowed by a court to assert an opinion from an examination made of a defendant subsequent to the commission of a crime as to whether or not

City of Damascus v. State of Oregon

367 Or. 41 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 3, 2020

And the voters of the city clearly had authority to decide whether to disin- corporate the city, as is evidenced by ORS 221.610 and ORS 50 City of Damascus v. … Cite as 367 Or 41 (2020) 55 not more than 15 percent of the qualified voters may be required to propose legislation by initiative, and not more than 10 percent of the qualified

Ollschlager's Estate v. Widmer

55 Or. 145 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1909

The weakness of this position lies in assuming a premise not clearly established. It first appears that Ollschlager went to Germanw to marry the person whom he brought back with him, and whom he represented as his wife. … established, it without merit.

Dish Network Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue

364 Or. 254 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 25, 2019

But while that view of unitary valuation clearly has its advocates, it appears to have arisen in a particular context that is not relevant in Oregon. … Much of the Tax Court's opinion is devoted to establishing the validity of that one-year time frame. We do not describe that portion of the opinion, because it is not relevant to the question before us.

Morales v. SAIF Corp.

339 Or. 574 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 2005

Thus, a claimant who has retired from the labor market cannot qualify for [temporary total disability] benefits because of the claimant’s decision to refuse further wage earning employment.” Id. at 300 . … Claimant contends that the statute does not clearly indicate when its provisions are triggered.

Cal-Roof Wholesale, Inc. v. State Tax Commission

242 Or. 435 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1966

The question may be stated: Does the taxpayer, an Oregon corporation engaged in certain limited activities in the state of Washington, qualify to ex- *437 elude from its net income subject to Oregon excise tax that portion … Plaintiff’s Washington activities clearly establish sufficient contact (nexus) with the state of Washington to allow that state, using Oregon’s corporate income tax law, to impose a tax on that portion of plaintiff’s income

Brown v. Portland School District No. 1

291 Or. 77 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 27, 1981

by pleading in its answer "the ultimate facts from which governmental immunity is implied as a matter of law * * *." … But I want you to prepare an amendment saying what I meant to say four years ago, clearly and unequivocally. A: Gosh, I'll try.

State v. Willson

116 Or. 615 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1926

Chief Justice Bean, that an expert, though thoroughly qualified as a witness, cannot be permitted to give an opinion upon facts known to him, and not communicated to the jury. … While it is generally defined as the body of the crime, it is more clearly expressed by calling it the body or thing which is the victim of a wrong.

State v. Stark

354 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 15, 2013

Stark had any bearing on its thinking about who would qualify as a “person who has been convicted of a felony.” … The legislature used the general term “judgment” and not a qualified term such as “original judgment.”

Swift & Co. v. Peterson

192 Or. 97 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1951

No person operating any slaughterhouse, stockyard, packing plant, livestock auction market or similar establishment shall sell or slaughter or permit the sale or slaughter of any livestock in or through such establishment … Their immunity from inspection under the Act continues only so long as they are still in the flow of interstate commerce movement which brought them into this state.

Stanich v. BUCKLEY

230 Or. 126 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1962

Carrol drank some beer, the quantity not being established by any of the testimony. During the evening Carrol and plaintiff decided that they would go to the Pagoda, a bar, for a drink after plaintiff closed his tavern. … The rationale of these cases is clearly stated in White v. Davis, 103 Cal App 531, 284 P 1086, 1092 (1930).

Lichau v. Baldwin

333 Or. 350 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 14, 2002

The unit diary was in evidence at the post-conviction hearing and contained an entry demonstrating that petitioner had qualified on the rifle range at Camp Lejeune on June 28, 1989. … The court concluded that the absence of the above evidence “clearly ha[d] a tendency to affect the result of the prosecution of the case” and granted petitioner post-conviction relief. *358 The state appealed, assigning error

Dimitroff v. State Industrial Accident Commission

209 Or. 316 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1957

To instruct the jury that plaintiff had no burden of proof was clearly contradictory to the law and was prejudiciál to the defendant. … As a dissenter in the Wyckoff case the writer of this opinion bows to the will of the majority and acknowledges that that case establishes the law of Oregon.

Humphers v. First Interstate Bank

298 Or. 706 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1985

Doubtless plaintiffs interest qualifies as a “privacy” interest. … Granted that at times a court must decide a new point of law that necessarily will establish either a right in the plaintiff or a privilege or immunity in the defendant, Hinish v.

Penrose v. Mitchell Bros. Crane Division, Inc.

246 Or. 507 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1967

Lininger, 224 Or 614 at 622 , 356 P2d 547 (1960), clearly established “* * * that the workmen of both employers were commingled in a common undertaking, all were exposed to the same hazards, and all were necessary to the … The mobile crane was therefore clearly under the control of the defendant. The defendant was more than the supplier of the equipment. It was the operator.

State v. Hirsch/Friend

338 Or. 622 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 23, 2005

State of Oregon, 306 Or 529, 533-34 , 761 P2d 502 (1988) (although unavailability of post-conviction relief to persons convicted of municipal ordinance violations did not in itself contravene equal privilege and immunities … Article I, section 27, clearly guarantees the right to bear arms for purposes of defense — specifically, “for the defence of [the people] themselves, and the State.”