Case law

Logan v. D. W. Sivers Co.

343 Or. 339 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 18, 2007

To qualify as an “exchange” for purposes of 26 USC § 1031 , a replacement property must be designated as such *343 within 45 days of the sale of the original property and purchased with the gain realized on the original sale … The parties clearly intended, and clearly had the right to expect, that that disclaimer would shield them from any liability for failing to carry through with the sale that then was being contemplated.

Miller v. Lillard

228 Or. 202 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1961

This is clearly within the scope of the statute and the ruling of the trial judge was correct. … Among other activities, they established a watch on the Lillard place and made a close inspection of Ms herd.

State v. Pinnell

311 Or. 98 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1991

Its right to introduce such evidence is, as previously stated, clearly established. … Even a long list of similarities does not necessarily establish an inference of distinctiveness. Id.

State v. Koennecke

274 Or. 169 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1976

This case, however, involved evidence which is not clearly "favorable” to the defendant and "material” to his guilt or innocence. … The State has requested the trial date, has requested the defendant to first enter the plea to establish that a trial is necessary and the State would be bound by any order of the Court refusing to permit witnesses to testify

Beard v. Beard

66 Or. 512 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1913

given office — the certificate of the auditor, which is conclusive until it is affirmatively overthrown, is properly held prima facie evidence that the person named in it has been elected, and is therefore, if he has duly qualified … warranto, and not mandamus, is the proper remedy to try the disputed title to a corporate office, and if that were the purpose of this litigation, we would unhesitatingly declare plaintiff had mischosen his remedy; but as it clearly

Olson v. State Industrial Accident Commission

222 Or. 407 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1960

The defendant bases its contention — that the record fails to establish the deceased sustained an accidental injury arising out of his employment — upon its interpretation of the 1957 amendments to the Workmen’s Compensation … Prior to the 1957 amendment, in. construing the word “accident,” which was undefined, but qualified by the words “violent and external means,” this court said: “The word ‘accident’, -as used in the statute, is taken in its

State v. Johnson

339 Or. 69 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2005

The rule provides, rather clearly, that trial delay becomes an issue when a defendant is charged. … That amendment clearly had no effect on the overall operation of the speedy trial statutes.

Oregon-Columbia Chapter AGC v. ODOT (S071452)

373 Or. 405 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 10, 2025

The stated purpose of that CWA was to provide “additional terms and conditions for certain ODOT public improvement projects that qualify as ‘Covered Projects’ ” as defined in the CWA. … “Most public contracts, for example, are exempt from rulemaking procedures [under ORS 183.335(10)], even if they contain terms that otherwise qualify as ‘rules.’ ” Homestyle Direct, LLC v.

Weiss v. Kohlhagen

58 Or. 144 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1911

This is clearly in answer to the allegation of plaintiff that defendant gave him no notice. … Justice Wolverton remarks: “The general rule is that the opinions of witnesses are not evidence, but to this there are two notable and well-established exceptions, both of which are said to rest upon a clear necessity, that

Oregon-Columbia Chapter AGC v. ODOT (S071452)

373 Or. 405 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 10, 2025

The stated purpose of that CWA was to provide “additional terms and conditions for certain ODOT public improvement projects that qualify as ‘Covered Projects’ ” as defined in the CWA. … “Most public contracts, for example, are exempt from rulemaking procedures [under ORS 183.335(10)], even if they contain terms that otherwise qualify as ‘rules.’ ” Homestyle Direct, LLC v.

Transamerica Insurance v. United States National Bank

276 Or. 945 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1976

The trial court properly applied the accepted rules of construction that a contract will not be construed to provide immunity from the consequences of a party’s own negligence unless that intention is clearly and unequivocally … Nevertheless, the deception practiced by Smith is clearly a mere variation on the kinds of deception that these provisions were intended to cover. 7 The general pattern of these sections is to absolve a payor bank, which

State v. Bartmess

33 Or. 110 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1898

It will be observed that the witness qualifies the statement imputed to him by making it his own, instead of acknowledging that it was Bartmess’ declaration ; and this being so, and the alleged admission being material, the … The views of this court on the latter clause of said section were clearly illustrated in State v. Lurch, 12 Or. 99 , ( 6 Pac. 408 ), and State v.

Humbert v. Sellars

300 Or. 113 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1985

II In her petition for review, the plaintiff urges that we should “abolish the immunity afforded to landlords and * * * apply general negligence principles to the relationship between landlords and tenants.” 2 We need not … Ill The drafters of ORS 91.770 aimed to establish minimum standards of health, safety, comfort and convenience that rental units must meet in order to be “habitable.”

City of Medford v. Bessonette

255 Or. 53 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1970

Plaintiff argues that Plaza failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish the creation of a trust. … If the use of the property taken was treated as if it had no connection with the use of the adjoining land for apartment purposes, the calculation of rentals from the prospective use for recreation purposes would clearly

Port Investment Co. v. Oregon Mutual Fire Insurance

163 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1939

of law; The court was clearly right in the first ground of its decision; as to the second, for reasons which will pres: ently appear, we withhold comment. … It is ordinarily stated that a custom or usage inconsistent with the plain and unambiguous terms of a contract cannot be interposed to contradict or qualify its provisions: Interior Warehouse Co. v.

Transportation Equipment Rentals, Inc. v. Oregon Automobile Insurance

257 Or. 288 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1970

The original complaint clearly stated a cause of action on the insurance binder. … Although it does not clearly appear from the opinion, the abstract of record *300 in Yoshida discloses that the insurance proceeds had been paid into court.

Johnson v. SAIF

369 Or. 579 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 21, 2022

This court later summarized the holding of the Barrett cases clearly and succinctly: “Barrett determined that the worker’s permanent partial disability was the full amount of his new impairment, without reduction for the … To qualify for the limited combined condition exception, there must be a legally cognizable preexisting condition that has combined with the otherwise compensable injury.

Landwatch Lane Cnty. v. Lane Cnty.

364 Or. 724 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2019

LandWatch does not dispute that the dwellings that formerly existed on landowner's property were "lawfully established." … First, a dwelling that is less than five years old would not qualify to be replaced under this subsection even if it had been taxed as a dwelling since it had first been occupied.

State Ex Rel. Academy Press, Ltd. v. Beckett

282 Or. 701 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1978

Campbell, 250 Or 262, 273 , 442 P2d 215 (1968), cert denied, 393 US 1093 (1969), that due process limitations "are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. … It is not clearly established whether Oregon courts have similar discretion, although Homer v.

Doyle v. City of Medford

Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2014

Does it clearly let both the court and the actor know in advance what conduct is prohibited? … We further concluded that, by using the phrase “insofar as and to the extent possible,” the legislature had intended to qualify the duty created by its use of the word “shall.” Id.