Case law

Kays v. McCall

244 Or. 361 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1966

judicial function by substituting for our judgment a clearly erroneous administrative pronouncement. … Monson, 95 Utah 552 , 83 P2d 266 (1938). ⑧ Or Laws 1917, ch 176, § 1. ⑨ Prior to 1957 it was not necessary for a person to register in order to qualify as a legal voter.

State v. Moyer

348 Or. 220 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 29, 2010

Tidyman, 306 Or 174, 185-86 , 759 P2d 242 (1988), that, to qualify as a Robertson category-two statute — a statute that focuses not on speech but on harmful effects — the operative text must “specify adverse effects” targeted … The equal privileges and immunities clause is also implicated when vague laws give unbridled discretion to judges and jurors to decide what is prohibited in a given case, for this results in the unequal application of criminal

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Campbell

345 Or. 670 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 5, 2009

The Bar must establish misconduct by clear and convincing evidence, i.e., “evidence establishing that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” In re Cohen, 316 Or 657, 659 , 853 P2d 286 (1993). … See ORS 114.305(18) (“a personal representative, acting reasonably for the benefit of interested persons, is authorized to [e]mploy qualified persons, including attorneys, accountants and investment advisers, to *682 advise

Harisay v. Clarno

367 Or. 116 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 8, 2020

We now turn to that question. 3 Plaintiffs also assert that, even if IP 5 does not qualify as a “law,” it could go forward as a “proposition or question.” … Supreme Court, while never directly deciding, has indicated that in matters pertaining to the amending process, the assent of State Governors is unnecessary because the State legislatures are performing a Federal function—clearly

State v. Phillips

314 Or. 460 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1992

While the Federal Rules of Evidence does not in terms refer to attacking the witness by showing bias, interest, corruption, or coercion, it clearly contemplates the use of [those] methods of impeachment.” … * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him * * 5 The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities

In Re Estate of Heck

120 Or. 80 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1926

Appellant, in assignments of error, says: “That said sections, as construed, grant to certain citizens or classes of citizens privileges and immunities which do not upon the same terms belong to all citizens equally.” *82 … While appellant does not challenge the above 'method of computation, we have thus shown it in order to present clearly the constitutional question involved.

Albert v. Salem

39 Or. 466 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1901

Bush’s statement that he knew about where Gordon set the stake qualifies his statement that the corner has remained since Gordon’s survey in its present place. … This line was clearly designated by Neff in his *479 notification as the true dividing line, and it was the duty of the surveyor general, in making the survey, to so recognize it, which we think clearly appears from the evidence

State Highway Commission v. Rawson

210 Or. 593 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1957

Counsel for plaintiff also made a qualified admission, as follows: “* * * The question is, by Statute does that cover this land or does it not. … Thus we have an area to which the mining lease statute clearly applies and the statutes clearly allocate the proceeds of sale or rental to a specific fund for school purposes.

Kucera v. Bradbury

337 Or. 384 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 22, 2004

On September 2, 2004, the Secretary of State notified Nader that his campaign had submitted 15,088 qualified signatures, which was 218 signatures short of the required number. … The Secretary of State advised Nader, “Consequently, there are not sufficient qualified signatures for you to gain ballot access for this office.”

Gratton v. Gratton's Estate

133 Or. 65 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1929

Gratton, each held one of said qualifying shares. So far as the record shows there was no real property standing in the name of testator at the time of his death. He had stocks and bonds of other corporations. … This clearly was not too remote for the right to a conveyance of the land will vest in him the moment the life tenant dies.

State v. Hansen

295 Or. 78 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1983

A few paragraphs later, the opinion states: “As we shall point out, the fact that the search warrant was ‘untainted’ does not immunize the government from a suppression motion because in this case the evidence was illegally … It seems reasonable to hold that such items of contraband as are actually discovered by the entering officers or which are clearly visible to the officers should be deemed to be seized.

Dept. of Transportation v. Stallcup

341 Or. 93 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 22, 2006

such a term is inconsistent with reference to a mere draft. 10 ORS 35.346(2) provides: “The [condemner’s] offer [to purchase the property] shall be accompanied by any written appraisal upon which the condemner relied in establishing … (If more than one person signs this certification, the certification must clearly specify which individuals did and which individuals did not make a personal inspection of the appraised property.)

Ex parte Harrell

57 Or. 95 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1910

In the case under consideration, no words are to be found in the order of May 12, 1910, indicating a purpose finally to suspend the business of the court for the term, and in the absence of the qualifying phrase “sine die … A petition for a stay of the enforcement of a judgment pending an appeal ought clearly to point out actions of the trial court, evidenced by the transcript or bill of exceptions, an examination of which satisfactorily establishes

Scott Co. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop

83 Or. 97 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1917

The validity of the restrictions on which appellants rely is established by Seeck v. Jakel, 71 Or. 35 ( 141 Pac. 211 , L. R. A. 1915A, 679). … The relative rights of appellants and Laurelhurst Company under the facts alleged in the complaint are clearly set out in De Gray v. Monmouth Beach Co., 50 N. J.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Albrecht

333 Or. 520 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2002

Rule 6(e)(2) establishes the general rule of federal grand jury secrecy. … Farber had obtained immunity from prosecution under an agreement with the federal government. Farber later obtained immunity from state prosecution under an agreement with the state government.

Application of Portland General Elec. Co.

277 Or. 447 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1977

established by the Council." … This clearly is not the law.

Keisling v. Myers

343 Or. 379 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 8, 2007

Instead, petitioners Keisling and Campbell assert, the proposed measure “establishes a new, parallel system, the open primary system.” … (Only the references to “all candidates” and “top two” in the caption can even arguably be said to address the petitioners’ concerns, but we think that those phrases, as used, so clearly refer back to the reference in the

Matar and Harake

Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 18, 2013

amount or may receive notice of and participate in any modification proceeding[.] “* * * * * “(5)(a) If a support order provides for the support or maintenance of a child attending school and the child qualifies … the formula established under ORS 25.275 is presumed to be the correct amount of the obligation.

Coquille Mill & Tug Co. v. Robert Dollar Co.

132 Or. 453 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1929

Before evidence can be admitted establishing that the parties placed an interpretation upon their contract the latter must be ambiguous. … Since we believe the covenant under consideration clearly was absolute and not conditional, evidence was inadmissible which would have modified it.

Charmley v. Lewis

302 Or. 324 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1986

There is no suggestion in the opinion that, had there not been an eyewitness, the preferred evidence would have failed to qualify as proper habit evidence. … Merely because conduct is unusual or distinctive does not establish that it is a habit. On the other hand, many behaviors that would seem clearly to be habits are not distinctive.