Case law

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.

State v. Nichols

361 Or. 101 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2017

The state responded that defen- dant’s statement did not qualify as an invocation, either unequivocal or equivocal. … Article I, section 12, establishes a right against compelled self-incrimination.5 To protect that right, police must give Miranda warnings to a suspect who is in custody or in other- wise compelling circumstances.

Holmes v. Appling

237 Or. 546 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 25, 1964

It is well established that when a constitution specifies the manner in which it may be amended or revised, it can be altered by those who favor amendments, revision, or other change only through the use of one of the specified … cannot determine for yourself whether the same shall be enacted into law or not.’ ” If a revised or a new constitution were to be adopted by the people in a manner or through a procedure authorized by the constitution, clearly

Strunk v. Public Employees Retirement Board

338 Or. 145 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 8, 2005

It is also equally well established that the intention of the Legislature thus to create contractual obligations, resulting in extinguishment to a certain extent of governmental powers, must clearly and unmistakably appear … In other words, the text of ORS 238.200(l)(a) (2001) and its statutory context do not establish clearly and unambiguously that the legislature intended to promise members *193 that they could contribute six percent of their

M & M Wood Working Co. v. State Industrial Accident Commission

201 Or. 603 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1954

Other sections establish enforcement provisions with which we are not now concerned. … The provision imposing inspection fees is clearly valid unless that provision is rendered unconstitutional, because of the section authorizing the waiver of those fees as to employers other than the plaintiffs who are operating

Capos v. Clatsop County

144 Or. 510 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1933

Ct. 952 ), for their conclusion that due process of law demands an arraignment and the entry of a plea prior to trial and that a judgment of conviction which fads to clearly state that such preliminaries took place must be … the course of the common law as in our present case, but were predicated upon special statutes prescribing the manner in which jurisdiction could be obtained over the defendant. *525 Judgments in criminal proceedings are immune

Capital Lumbering Co. v. Hall

9 Or. 93 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1881

They insist that the judicial character of the proceeding is established by giving to it a judicial effect, in divesting vested rights of action which are valuable and to be considered as property. … The sheriff then summons a jury, to try the right of property, of six persons qualified as jurors, between the parties, and gives five days’ notice of the time and place of trial to the plaintiff in the process, or his attorney

Kelly v. Dalles City

19 Or. 299 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 23, 1890

Said Bigelow was doubtless a qualified person to take a claim under said act, and, so far as I am able to discover, performed all the conditions and requirements necessary under it to entitle him to the benefit of its provisions … suitable portions, the boundaries of which to be clearly marked by natural or other objects and indicated by numbers on a map to be prepared for the convenience of future reference.

Curtis v. MRI IMAGING SERVICES II

327 Or. 9 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1998

Clearly, at least some conditions and events that the law deems to be purely psychological qualify as medical concerns in the mind of a medical professional. … Judgment on the pleadings is permissible only if the allegations, when taken in their entirety and viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, affirmatively establish that the plaintiff has no claim. Hawkins v.

State v. Cabanilla

351 Or. 622 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 2012

813.410. 17 "(k) The information provided to the person shall include the number 18 of days within which a hearing under ORS 813.410 will be held. 19 "(l) The person may possibly qualify … argues that admission of defendant's refusal to take the breath test violated his federal right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and violated the Privileges and Immunities

Pearson v. Twohy Bros.

113 Or. 230 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1924

The company had established a station in Cairo, the original terminus, at the end of a curve to the west. … There is no immunity that doth hedge a railroad company, preventing a governmental agency from the legitimate and reasonable exercise of its power to promote public safety.

In Re Estate of Felber

193 Or. 231 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1951

We think the evidence clearly establishes that Siemens appropriated and converted the car to his own use and he should, therefore, be held for its full purchase price, # * V’ In the present instance, the appellants (objectors … “Nor can the vitiating effect of a fraudulent action (if established) be negatived or neutralized by the assumption that no apparent injury attended the wrongful conduct.

Holman Transfer Co. v. City of Portland

196 Or. 551 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1952

The first phrase is absolute and unqualified; the second is conditional and definitely qualified. … The exemption is clearly expressed and understandable.

Ransom v. Radiology Specialists of the Nw.

363 Or. 552 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 23, 2018

According to defendant, Stevens establishes that, when the legislature promulgated ORCP 36 B, it made a deliberate decision not to permit "expert discovery." … Both have expertise; both may qualify as experts under OEC 702. And it is not the current application of expertise that is dispositive.

State v. Wallace

373 Or. 122 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 2024

Defendant does not dispute that J had a qualifying intellectual disability under the law then in effect. … Cite as 373 Or 122 (2024) 151 Here, in contrast, the evidence more clearly sug- gests that, even if J understood that the conduct that defen- dant had initiated was sexual in nature

Ehrman v. Galloway

160 Or. 418 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1938

All the capital stock of the corporation has at all times been owned by the partnership, with the exception of qualifying shares for directors, of which qualifying shares, however, the partnership has at all times been the … The facts as hereinbefore related clearly show that the corporation was solely an adjunct to the business of the partnership.

State v. Savage

36 Or. 191 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1900

It is urged that the shexiff, though not a'party to the action, was interested in the result thereof, and hence the court erred in not appointing some qualified person in his stead to select the talesmen, and also erred in … Notwithstanding the trial court, in admitting evidence of other inculpatory acts, may be clearly satisfied that proof of one criminal act necessarily connects the defendant with, and affords evidence of his commission of,

Albany & Santiam W. D. Co. v. Crawford

11 Or. 243 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1884

But such an understanding, no matter how general, with members of the company or even with the company itself, nor how clearly proved, would not establish any agreement on Crawford’s part. … Thus qualified and explained, they appear x’ather as acknowledgements of a moral than of a legal obligation, dependent upon his generosity towards individual members, and having no x-egax’d to the interests of the company

Natwick v. Moyer

177 Or. 486 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1945

Clearly, therefore, his testimony respecting the result of the test was pure hearsay so far as the defendants were concerned. … We think that when intoxication is the issue, testimony by a qualified witness as to the result of a blood test has probative value and should be received.

Shaffner v. City of Salem

201 Or. 45 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1954

Some of these business establishments are a direct result of changes in classification made since the adoption of Salem’s zoning code. … We will first refer only to those business locations within the affected area, as defined for the purpose of qualifying petitioners or remonstrators under that code.