Case law

Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2014

currently under con- struction across the state of Oregon *  * a microwave com- *  munications network that will link Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and so on. *  * We’d like to clearly … Although nothing in the record before us establishes precisely how cable television services were delivered in Oregon in 1973, Professor Nguyen’s uncontradicted testimony establishes that they were not delivered through a

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Snyder

348 Or. 307 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 27, 2010

He advised Cohn that both the city and the county were immune from liability for his injuries. … Clearly, the accused acted knowingly.

Nakamoto v. Kulongoski

322 Or. 181 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1995

summary would convey more precisely to voters the major effect of the measure because, by informing voters of the current status of *188 Oregon law, voters could infer more easily that the measure would have some, as yet not clearly … In order to qualify as a “minority business enterprise,” the business must be “at least 51 percent owned by a minority individual(s) or women[.]” OAR 125-030-000(8).

State v. Smith

228 Or. 340 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1961

. ; •: The foregoing facts were, established by uneontradicted evidence. … But there are other cases, where, notwithstanding the intention clearly was to destroy life, the offense is reduced to manslaughter, by circumstances of great and sudden provocation, or the like. * * *” 42 NH at 492.

Semler v. Cook-Waite Laboratories, Inc.

203 Or. 139 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1954

We copy the following from the defendant-respondent’s brief: “ ‘Bespondent is a foreign corporation which has not qualified to do business in this state nor appointed any statutory agent for service herein, nor can any one … Clearly, it never intends to reward those who flaunt our laws and render their condition superior to those who obey the law.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Drake

292 Or. 704 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1982

The evidence clearly establishes a violation of DR 5-104(A). Not only was there no full disclosure, there was no disclosure at all. No consent was obtained. … Unlike the Trial Board, however, we are not clearly and convincingly persuaded that Drake was “not credible.” On this record, we are not convinced that he should be permanently disbarred.

State v. Bouse

199 Or. 676 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1953

the accused must be according to the established rules as to competency. 14 Am Jur 849, Criminal Law, § 120; 16 CJS 1181, Constitutional Law, § 589. … “Q Now, were there any offers of immunity or reward held out to the defendant to make this statement? “A There were none. “Q Did he give it freely and voluntarily?

State v. Guzek

336 Or. 424 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 4, 2004

At the same time, the text establishes that the voters intended the anticipated conflict to be *444 resolved in one of two ways, depending on the source of the criminal defendant’s conflicting right. … The case law construing ORS 163.150(l)(b)(D) clearly explains the constitutional source at issue, as well as the intended scope of relevant “mitigating evidence” under the statutory scheme in its current form, as discussed

State v. Cazares-Mendez/Reyes-Sanchez

350 Or. 491 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 8, 2011

The court confirmed that it is for the jury to decide whether the 22 witness to the hearsay statement was credible: 20  1 "[U]nder the established rules of evidence … In particular, the state asserts that there is no independent evidence to establish that Scherer committed the murder.

Dickman v. School District No. 62c

232 Or. 238 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1961

The evidence establishes, and the trial judge found, that the purpose of the Catholic church in operating the St. … The furnishing of textbooks even more clearly constitutes an educational aid.

State v. Williams

374 Or. 648 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2025

Third-degree robbery, as defined under ORS 164.395, establishes the base level of that offense. … It would be clearly robbery, but it’s a threat to do bodily harm. And a threat to do bodily harm to this person could be extortion if it’s a threat to do harm to him in the future.

Mannix v. Portland Telegram

144 Or. 172 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1933

. * * * This immunity rests on obvious grounds of public policy and convenience. … It clearly appeared from his answers and otherwise that he had been so removed or disbarred. That was as far as the prosecution was entitled to go.

Salem Mills Co. v. Lord

42 Or. 82 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1902

Justice Watson says: “An agent of the state, whether incorporated or not, by virtue of his character simply, possesses no such immunity from being sued. … This brings us to an application of the principles thus established to the conditions here involved.

State v. Hernandez-Esteban

374 Or. 300 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 25, 2025

Defendant established a case-specific theory of substan- tial prejudice, supported by the record. … Defendant’s argument fit comfortably into the theories that we identified in Delaney, 370 Or at 575, and clearly articulated how and why the jury would likely base its decision on either emotion or impermissible inferences

Garcia-Solis v. Farmers Ins. Co. (In re Comp. of Garcia-Solis)

365 Or. 26 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 31, 2019

appliances, arising out of and in the course of employment requiring medical services or resulting in disability or death; an injury is accidental if the result is an accident, whether or not due to accidental means, if it is established … See ORS 656.267(1) (must be "clearly request[ed]," with certain forms specifically not allowed); ORS 656.262(6)(d) (worker must give notice of any "incorrectly omitted" conditions in writing).

Rhodes v. Harwood

273 Or. 903 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1975

Steeves, 29 Or 85 , 43 P 947 (1896) (in which that requirement was established), were cited as authority. Moreover, Bartmess was decided prior to State v. … Co., 153 Or 152 , 56 P2d 318 (1936), in which the rule of “prejudice” was again clearly stated. In State v.

City of Woodburn v. Domogalla

238 Or. 401 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1964

Certainly in the present case the circuit court was equally qualified to determine whether defendant had exceeded the bounds of his authority. 5. … In those situations where the legislature has granted specific power to act I am convinced that it was clearly intended that the tax court would have every power that formerly was exercised by the circuit courts.

West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims

Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 8, 2016

Oregon Auto’s duty to defend was owed to anyone who qualified as an insured under the terms of the policy. … The allegations in the complaint, however, did not clearly indicate whether the injury would be covered.

State v. Gauthier

113 Or. 297 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1925

Tested by these long-established rules, the indictment in the present case is legally sufficient to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against him, and to inform the court of the statute upon which the charge … The evidence attempted to be elicited was clearly in regard to a self-serving declaration and incompetent. Defendant complains as to the qualifications of some of the jurors.

Chartrand v. Coos Bay Tavern, Inc.

298 Or. 689 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1985

. * * * “The usual method of establishing adjudicative facts is through the introduction of evidence, ordinarily consisting of the testimony of witnesses. … Such legislation, therefore, frees the injured party from the requirement of establishing negligence or fault on the part of the tavern owner.