Case law

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.

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.

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

Willamette Egg Farms, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

331 Or. 327 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 2000

The plain, natural, and ordinary meaning of “related” is “connected by reason of an established or discoverable relation.”Id. at 1916. … Taxpayer’s argument renders meaningless the qualifying phrase “directly related.”

In re Crum

103 Or. 296 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1922

-The law-making power of the State of Oregon has placed the authority and responsibility upon this court to determine who are qualified to become its officers as attorneys. … While the proceeding is civil, and not criminal, yet more than a preponderance of the evidence is required, and the guilt of the attorney must be clearly established: In re Evans, 22 Utah, 366 [ 62 Pac. 913 , 83 Am. St.

State v. Morrow

158 Or. 412 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1937

In holding that the record was not admissible, the decision said: “The law as applicable to both these questions is clearly settled by this court in the case of Maple v. … Nothing established in the filiation proceeding became res adjudícala in the rape action.

Cornelius v. Bay Motors Inc.

258 Or. 564 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1971

Key-lock operated several trucks in his business and was a qualified aircraft mechanic. Defendant’s salesman had previously sold some 20 cars or trucks to Mr. Keylock. … Defendant’s salesman testified that he was also a qualified aircraft mechanic and that before selling this car to Mr.

State v. Chakerian

325 Or. 370 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1997

Robertson, 293 Or 402 , 649 P2d 569 (1982), this court established the framework for determining whether a law, on its face, violates Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. … That must be the case because, if a party’s conduct clearly is proscribed by a statute, then that statute by definition cannot be said to be vague in all its applications.

State Ex Rel. Coast Holding Co. v. Ekwall

144 Or. 672 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1933

It is a well established rule in this state that in a mandamus proceeding the petition is no part of the pleadings. Section 8-309, Oregon Code 1930. … Clearly, such procedure as that provided in the stipulation constitutes an innovation not contemplated by the statute and, if it should be upheld as a precedent for future cases, it would thrust upon the courts unusual and

Wadsworth v. Talmage

365 Or. 558 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 10, 2019

The remedy has its lim- its, as “a constructive trust can attach only to items and money that the evidence clearly identifies as rightfully ‘belonging’ to the plaintiff, or to the identifiable products of, or substitutes … That is a contention advanced most clearly by Professor Emily Sherwin.

State ex rel. Reed v. Smith

15 Or. 98 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1887

The latter might very properly claim and establish that it would recognize no one as a stockholder until, a transfer of the stock was made upon its books. … A person may be qualified to be a director whose vote cannot be received at the election.

U.S. Bancorp v. Department of Revenue

337 Or. 625 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 16, 2004

We do not suggest that those circumstances, without more, establish that the department intended OAR 150-314.280- (M) (1995) to operate retrospectively. … Almost a year later, Congress amended the tax code to eliminate that deduction retrospectively and, as a result of that amendment, the taxpayer no longer qualified for the deduction. Id. at 28-30 .

Lindland v. United Business Investments, Inc.

298 Or. 318 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1984

This alone establishes the breach of duty: conflict of interest or self-dealing is the breach of duty. … Here respondents’ complaint did not clearly allege any wrongful nondisclosure of the dual agency, and the issue was not explored by either side at trial.

State v. Edmonds

364 Or. 410 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 28, 2019

Moreover, OEC 803(8) was derived from the common-law official records exception, "one of the well-established common law hearsay exceptions." State v. Copeland , 353 Or. 816 , 830, 306 P.3d 610 (2013). … that "somebody walked in on somebody on top of my sister in one of the bedrooms." 8 However, unlike the other pieces of evidence that the state mustered, the transcript's reliability did not depend on memory and thus was immune

McHorse v. Portland General Electric Company

268 Or. 323 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1974

We conclude that plaintiff qualifies for total disability under the plan. … "In other words, the evidence clearly indicates you misrepresented your condition to Dr. Davis and to the Company.

In re Conry

368 Or. 349 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 15, 2021

Levin maintained that, after 2013 opin- ions by the United States Supreme Court, client’s crimes no longer qualified as crimes involving moral turpitude. … By revealing client’s name, respondent violated RPC 1.6(a), and he would not qualify for any self-defense exception under RPC 1.6(b)(4). E.

Stettler v. O'Hara

69 Or. 519 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1914

constitutional, and, when this depends on the existence or nonexistence of some fact, or state of facts, the determination thereof is primarily for the legislature, and the courts will acquiesce in its decision, unless the error clearly … There is only one federal inhibition urged against this statute, namely: *531 “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States, nor shall any state

Babbitt v. Pacco Investors Corp.

246 Or. 261 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1967

It is sufficient to say of this contention that it was clearly and irrevocably waived by counsel representing both defendants at the trial. … Another assignment of error urged by both defendants is so clearly lacking in merit that it does not call for discussion.

Barcik v. Kubiaczyk

321 Or. 174 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 25, 1995

This court concluded that the statutory immunity provision in ORS *183 30.270 does not limit liability under section 1983. Id. at 273-85 . … Nominal damages may be awarded, in a proper case, only to a party who has established a claim.

Moss v. Peoples California Hydro-Electric Corp.

134 Or. 227 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1930

The value thus established was not a personal one but a commercial one recognized by the market. … In an action of this character, where treble damages lend to the proceeding a punitive character, the above evidence was clearly prejudicial to the defendant’s case.