Case law

Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers v. Board of Commissioners

287 Or. 591 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1979

The law distinguished clearly between the county court’s judicial jurisdiction and its conduct of county business. … The establishment or vacation of a county road is expressly made an item of county business, as stated above.

State v. K.J.B. (In re K.J.B.)

362 Or. 777 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 2018

would find himself in a life threatening condition because, although he's experienced as a homeless person, right now he doesn't known what month it is *** and has dropped some weight and is refusing to take medications, is clearly … The court appoints at least one qualified examiner, who examines the allegedly mentally ill person at the hearing and prepares a report. ORS 426.120.

Medical Building Land Co. v. Department of Revenue

283 Or. 69 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1978

. *72 Plaintiffs’ appeal of this determination to the Department was denied, and plaintiffs filed suit in the Tax Court seeking to set aside this denial and to establish the true cash value of the subject property at $2,625,000 … At trial before the Tax Court, each side put on a single witness, both being characterized by the Tax Court as "able, experienced men, clearly qualified as an expert.”

State v. George

16 L.R.A. 737 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1892

McBride, supra, established the principle that the legislature, in the appointment of the railroad commissioners, had not encroached upon the executive department of the government, they were state officers, charged with … It is not whether the general assembly, the executive, or the judiciary are the best qualified to select and appoint such officers, but where is the power to do so lodged?

Roberts v. SAIF Corp.

341 Or. 48 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 15, 2006

discussing the question, the committee decided not to amend that section of the bill, but the chair explained that the committee intended that the exclusion would apply to only those recreational and social activities "that clearly … However, those statutes also create an employer immunity from worker claims (other than those grounded in or authorized by the Workers' Compensation Law) that is not linked to the compensability of the underlying injury.

State v. Briney

345 Or. 505 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2008

established that defendant’s pistol fell within the statutory definition of a “firearm.” … Many of the qualifiers used within the dictionary definition, e.g., “with fairly quick efficiency,” “without needless loss of time,” and “reasonably fast” (emphases added), suggest as much.

State v. Farber

295 Or. 199 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1983

Thus, although the issue was clearly presented, there was no clear resolution of the problem of the interaction of the admissibility of a coconspirator’s statement and the confrontation clause. 11 The Supreme Court’s most … It has been suggested that the state should immunize a coconspirator, forcing him to testify, so there is no hearsay offered and thus no conflict with the confrontation clause. See, Dutton v.

Mitchell v. Campbell

19 Or. 198 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 7, 1890

It is not sufficient to entitle the heirs of the devisee now to recover, to establish the fact that the estate so vested has been divested; but that it has been divested in *207 a manner inconsistent with, the principles … It cannot make good retrospectively acts or contracts which it had and could have no power to permit or sanction in advance. ” This last clause indicates very clearly what the author did mean by “curing defects in legal proceedings

Willamette University v. Knight

35 Or. 33 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1899

The state court held, respecting the constitution of 1848, that the general assembly was clearly restricted in the exercise of its discretion in making exemptions to property for school and religious and charitable purposes … True, the Massachusetts statute differs somewhat from ours in the use of the words “by them or their officers,” qualifying the term “occupied.” The distinction, however, is more apparent than real.

State of Oregon v. Holland

202 Or. 656 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1954

As thus qualified, it is apparent that the author refers to the type of code which is technically a revision. … The statement that the defendant purposely and maliciously killed the victim by cutting him with a knife, establishes that the act was a felony. The other contentions are frivolous. State v.

Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. City of Lake Oswego

360 Or. 115 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2016

Thus, although “[t]he legislature knows how to include qualifying language in a statute when it wants to do so,” PGE v. … First, the owner must establish that it was the owner of the property at the time that it was designated. Second, it must establish that the designation was “imposed” on the property by the local government.

State v. Babson

355 Or. 383 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 15, 2014

We’re not going to keep going with an offer of proof that’s going to get into things that are very, very clearly hearsay.” … Moreover, the offer of proof would have allowed defendants to demonstrate that the proffered testimony did not qualify as hearsay, as defense counsel clearly indicated was his view.

State v. 1920 Studebaker Touring Car

120 Or. 254 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1926

To allow the Legislature to except from the operation of a constitutional provision, by direct enactment, a matter clearly falling within its meaning, would sanction a fraud upon the organic law and might in the end destroy … Such a trial alone can satisfy the express provisions in the Declaration of Rights, art. 12, which declares that no subject shall be arrested, or deprived of his property, immunities or privileges, or of his life, liberty

State v. Jackson

364 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 6, 2018

"There was no inducement of immunity in this case. … "It is well established that confessions are initially deemed to be involuntary and that the state has the burden to overcome that presumption by offering evidence affirmatively establishing that the confession was voluntary

State Ex Rel. Peterson v. Martin

180 Or. 459 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1946

It is contended that the Act does not vest the administrator with discretion whether to issue or to refuse to issue a milk-distributor's license to a properly qualified applicant. … "The law clearly contemplates the establishment of a natural marketing area. The standard would be violated, for example, if a portion of Tillamook County were included in the Salem market area."

Christensen v. Murphy

296 Or. 610 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1984

However, the reasoning of this court in Spencer clearly was not based on premises liability analysis, but on assumption of risk and policy rationales. 6 *617 Before reaching the question of the extension of the “fireman’s … For example, policy consideration “1” above focuses on the fire fighter as a class from whom the premises owner needs immunity (akin to a licensee or trespasser), not on the reasonableness of the activity of the premises

Hyde v. Albert E. Peirce & Co.

147 Or. 5 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1934

In other words, these parties argue that the bond required by section 25-1309, Oregon Code 1930, is a qualifying bond and not an indemnity bond. … It is said that by a qualifying bond is meant one, which evidences that the applicant for a broker’s permit, who tenders such a bond, is of financial and moral worth.

State v. Camarena

344 Or. 28 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 25, 2008

As we read Davis , that statement was intended to emphasize that statements made in situations not amounting to “interrogation” may, depending on the circumstances, nevertheless qualify as testimonial, so that their admission … First, although the relevant portions of complainant’s 9-1-1 telephone call clearly describe an attack that had passed, the call occurred within one minute of the attack, or just after defendant had left the couple’s residence

Jory v. Martin

153 Or. 278 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1936

Manifestly, no other persons at that time were better qualified to express an opinion as to the meaning of the constitution, or could speak more authoritatively, than these men and, therefore, their opinions upon the very … three great departments of the state and such construction has been acquiesced in by the people for that whole period, the court should not apply a different construction to that provision unless its unconstitutionality is established

Smith v. Hurlburt

108 Or. 690 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1923

The County Court is established by virtue of the Constitution and is invested with the jurisdiction conferred by that document, and such as may be prescribed by law. … The intent to levy the tax is clearly shown by the record. No technical defects should invalidate the levy.