Case law

Picker v. Vollenhover

206 Or. 45 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1955

Halvey, 330 US 610 , 91 L ed 1133, to the effect that “as to either prospective or retroactive enforcement of such obligations, this state ‘has at least as much leeway to disregard the judgment, to qualify it, or to depart … The practice in this state clearly establishes the procedure to be followed in these cases.

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.

Valenti v. Hopkins

324 Or. 324 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1996

another action involving collecting an assessment for public improvements, the court stated: “Neither is there any validity to plaintiffs contention that his land does not abut on the street to be improved, and is therefore immune … In Lincoln, this court held: “When a contract clearly expresses that a third person is to make final decisions respecting specified matters, such agreement is enforceable.” Id. at 692 (emphasis added).

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Piper

271 Or. 726 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1975

That amendment to Article VII, § 8, of the Oregon Constitution was implemented by the adoption by the 1967 Oregon Legislature of ORS 1.410 ff, providing for the establishment of the Commission on Judicial Fitness (Oregon … It was contended by Jenkins by writ of prohibition in that case that the Oregon State Bar, by seeking his disbarment as a lawyer, sought also to dis *740 qualify him as a judge by reason of the fact that in order to qualify

Port of Umatilla v. RICHMOND

212 Or. 596 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1958

. *601 The Port of Umatilla was established as a district in the year 1940. … The highly-qualified witness Pollett testified that his concern could probably occupy 50 acres and 2,000 feet of waterfront and that its competitor would use a like amount.

O'Hara v. Parker

27 Or. 156 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1895

brought merely to establish a legal title, or recover possession alone.” … The court there say: “The subject matter of the bill, therefore, was clearly within the equity jurisdiction of the court.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Gustafson

305 Or. 655 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 17, 1988

The rules of judicial conduct anticipated in subsection (1) (e) were previously established by this court in the Code of Judicial Conduct. … It is not sufficient to show that he reasonably should have known; *659 disregard of a known rule or criterion must be clearly and convincingly proved.

Beaman v. DeShazor, Jr.

197 Or. 669 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1953

After leaving that service in 1944, DeShazor set up a bakery establishment in Portland, the trade of which was sustained, in the main, by customers employed in war production plants at that time. … The Hill case is easily and clearly distinguishable on its facts from the instant matter.

Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen

315 Or. 500 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1993

its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations. * * * “Here the requirement that appellants permit appellees to exercise state-protected rights of free expression and petition on shopping center property clearly … Oregon, perhaps more than Michigan, has a long-established tradition of respect for the initiative process.

Smith v. Jefferson

75 Or. 179 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1915

Stated broadly, *187 a de facto officer is one who has the possession of an office and performs the duties thereof under color of right, without being actually qualified in law so to act. … The notice as supplemented by the plans and specifications was clearly sufficient, and fully complied with the rule established by prior decisions: Clinton v. Portland, 26 Or. 410 ( 38 Pac. 407 ); Rubin v.

Miller v. School District No. 1

106 Or. 108 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1922

alleges that School District No. 1, Multnomah County, Oregon, is a duly *110 organized school district of this state having more than 20,000 children of school age, and that the remaining defendants are the duly elected, qualified … Section 2 authorizes the board of directors-to subdivide the district into school election precincts, provides that schoolhouses shall be used as polling places in all cases when covenient and that no precinct established

Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc.

356 Or. 577 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 26, 2014

See, e.g., Bergerson, 341 Or at 412-13 (concluding that “unreasonable” and “clearly * * * excessive remedy” are delegative because the relevant statute “defines neither term, and both are open to multi- ple interpretations … Simplot Co., 340 Or at 197 (con- cluding that “reasonably necessary” is not delegative given additional, qualifying statutory wording).

Multnomah County v. Mehrwein

366 Or. 295 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 23, 2020

That phrase is further defined to refer to a communication that “clearly and unambiguously urges the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for nom- ination or election to public office, or the passage or defeat … of a clearly identified measure,” ORS 260.005(10)(c)(A)(i) (2015), or communications that “refer[ ] to a clearly identi- fied candidate who will appear on the ballot or to a political party,” ORS 260.005(10)(c)(B)(ii) (2015

Berg v. Mengore

271 Or. 530 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1975

We did so without discussion of Miller and without considering whether that case qualified as a “rare” or “exceptional” case, within *542 the rule of Miller . … With all due respect to the majority, I submit that there was no evidence whatsoever to establish as a “fact” that when plaintiff suddenly slowed his car he “knew” at that time that defendant was there and at that time “turning

Silbaugh v. Guardian Building & Loan Ass'n

164 Or. 286 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1940

Any attempt to do so would have been clearly unconstitutional. State ex rel. v. Sears , 29 Or. 580 , 582 , 43 P. 482 , 46 P. 785 , 54 Am. St. Rep. 808 ; Fisk v. … But notwithstanding such legislation if the corporation chooses not to take advantage of its temporary immunity to suit and particularly if it waives its immunity with the apparent consent and approval of the receiver as

Anderson v. Alexander

191 Or. 409 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1951

Ct. 154 . * * *” Ex Parte Houghton, 49 Or. 232 , 89 P. 801 , was decided before the establishment of the present statutory procedures. … The California court said: “Not only must the appointing power investigate such moral and mental qualities of a probationer, but he is required to make a determination as to ‘whether the employee is fully qualified for permanent

Davidson v. Rogers

281 Or. 219 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1978

If the courts sustain legislative negation of established judicial process by applying only the test of a conceivable rational reason for the legislation, then the way is open for the legislature to nullify any form of judicial … Should the plaintiff in the case at bar disseminate to other persons libels concerning these defendants, the immunity conferred upon them would in no wise be of avail to him.

Johnson v. Timber Structures, Inc.

203 Or. 670 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1955

It had established no definite rule. Its decisions were to some extent in a state of confusion. … His interpretation of the statute finally became the established rule in Minnesota.

Scoville v. Hampton

217 Or. 256 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1959

In addition, other portions of the letter clearly show that plaintiffs were not in accord with other proposed terms submitted by defendants' exhibit 2. … 1/4 of Section 15; all in Township 11 South of Range 10 West of the Willamette Meridian in Lincoln County, State of Oregon. *271 for the sum of FOUR DOLLARS ($4.00) per THOUSAND FEET, based on the cruise of a competent, qualified