Case law

State v. Shedrick

370 Or. 255 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 6, 2022

Thus, the state reasons, the qualifying phrase—“that nec- essarily requires a culpable mental state”—refers to other elements of an offense and so might not encompass the property-value element of the theft offense. … Shedrick not established. Id.

Loveland v. Warner

113 Or. 604 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1925

In this jurisdiction it is well established that, when a demurrer to an answer is overruled and the plaintiff pleads over, the demurrer is abandoned and it ceases to be a part of the record: Wells v. … Clearly, these two paragraphs constitute, in respect to their subject-matter, concurrent covenants.

State v. Johns

301 Or. 535 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1986

That concept does not qualify prior crime evidence for admission. … A simple, unremarkable single instance of prior conduct probably will not qualify, but a complex act requiring several steps, particularly premeditated, may well qualify.

Santilli v. State Farm Life Insurance

278 Or. 53 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1977

Reversed. 1 "* * * it is common knowledge that an insurance company will not issue a policy of insurance or will issue only a qualified polity if the company knows that the applicant has certain serious symptoms relevant … When the court does not have such knowledge, the insurer must adduce evidence to establish the fact and the claimant may rebut it with other evidence.” 2 It appears that the deceased incorrectly answered each of the following

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. State Board of Agriculture

198 Or. 43 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1953

They are paid the prices established by the defendant; subject, of course, to readjustment if the period’s operations result in a surplus which must be sold at a low price. … Accordingly, unless a doctrine or principle has become so well established that it may fairly be considered to have become a rule of property, * * * the courts will not adhere to it, although established by previous decisions

Furlong v. Tish

189 Or. 86 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 9, 1950

The only other method by which an appeal may be taken is by a written notice, and the section clearly indicates that an appeal, if not taken in open court, may be taken within thirty days “from the date of the entry thereof … Only thus can we avoid a repugnancy in the two sections; only thus can we conform to the dicta of this court and to what we consider the rule established by long practice.

Thompson v. THOMPSON

233 Or. 262 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1963

establish a shocking disparity between the amount bid and the value of the property. … The rule is sometimes stated with qualifying language. Thus in Sage v.

Multnomah School of Bible v. Multnomah County

218 Or. 19 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1959

benevolent purposes, but it expressly confines the right of exemption to such real estate only belonging to them as shall be actually occupied in a particular manner and for a specified purpose, and this right, therefore, clearly … The fact that the profits from these operations were used for the charitable and benevolent purposes of the institution did not qualify those portions of the property so used to exempt status.

State v. McDonnell

313 Or. 478 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1992

Russell Stover, supra, 44 Or App at 545 (“the record established little more than that the [evidence] would have been cumulative[.]”). … Article I, section 20, provides: “No law shall he passed grantingto any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms; shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

M. A. B. v. Buell

366 Or. 553 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2020

The court did conclude, as petitioner points out, that the record in this case “does not establish a repetitive pattern of conduct that qualifies as abuse under FAPA that could support an inference that the abuse will occur … Based on the trial court’s findings, this is clearly one of those cases. Respondent threatened to kill petitioner if she left him. And the parties were no longer living together because petitioner left respondent.

White v. White

34 Or. 141 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1899

The first two instructions qualify dominion by the use of the words “as owner,” while no such qualifying words appear in the one last above quoted. 1. … If a deed be so disposed of as to evince clearly the intention of the grantor that it shall take effect as a conveyance, it is a sufficient delivery:” 2 Jones, Real Prop., § 1220.

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

MT & M Gaming, Inc. v. City of Portland

360 Or. 544 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 3, 2016

Cite as 360 Or 544 (2016) 555 narrowing implication of the modifier “legal”: Any “interest” may qualify as long as it is “legally recognized.” … The foregoing history clearly shows that the requirement is a matter of general federal standing jurisprudence.

AAA Oregon/Idaho Auto Source, LLC v. State

363 Or. 411 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 2, 2018

The fact that a reference to taxes levied on, or measured by, sales is clearly included in paragraph (1)(a) and clearly omitted from paragraph (1)(b) indicates that the voters would have understood and intended the constitutional … Moneys in the fund are to be used for rebates to purchasers of qualifying vehicles. Id. § 152(6); see id. §§ 149, 150.

Larisa's Home Care, LLC v. Nichols-Shields

Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 26, 2017

Prichard had been qualified for Medicaid, and plaintiff thus was contractually obligated to charge her only the Medicaid rate. … The time-dependent nature of the rules is even more clearly illustrated in OAR 461-140-0300(2), which provides that “the disqualification ends if the transfer that caused the disqualification is rescinded.”

Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

331 Or. 285 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 17, 2000

“There may come someday where there are established epidemiological studies and enough experts that can tie this and somebody can say it’s a cause. … However, case reports sometimes are sufficient in and of themselves to establish causation.

Larisa's Home Care, LLC v. Nichols-Shields

Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 26, 2017

Prichard had been qualified for Medicaid, and plaintiff thus was contractually obligated to charge her only the Medicaid rate. … The time-dependent nature of the rules is even more clearly illustrated in OAR 461-140-0300(2), which provides that “the disqualification ends if the transfer that caused the disqualification is rescinded.”

Longview Fibre Co. v. Johnston

193 Or. 385 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1951

None of the party was a qualified surveyor. They ran a line from a corner common to sections 1 and 12 to a point which they took to be the northeast corner of section 9, a distance of “maybe two miles.” … Without burdening this opinion with unnecessary detail, we state that Freed’s evidence shows clearly that, based upon the location of the known corners above described, and by application of the principle of double proportionate

Beach v. Holland

172 Or. 396 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1943

The evidence clearly shows, and counsel for the defendant concede in their brief, that the action of the deceased in causing her bank account to be changed to a joint account in the names of herself and the plaintiff, was … The claim of immunity from the tax was rejected for several reasons, among others that in Oregon an estate by the entirety in personal property cannot be created.

State v. Hoover

219 Or. 288 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1959

This, in fact, is the rule established by decisions of this court. State v. McDaniel, 115 Or 187 , 231 P 965 , 237 P 373 (1925), controls the disposition of this appeal. … But he overlooks the important qualifying language “which may subject him to enhanced penalties.” The defendant is not subjected to any “enhanced” penalty by a conviction under ORS 166.270.