Case law

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).

Oregon Growers' Co-operative Ass'n v. Lentz

107 Or. 561 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1923

the defendant, nor is it violative, as is also argued by the defendant, of Section 20, Article I of the Constitution, which provides that “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities … and its enforcement hy mandatory injunction restraining the defendant from selling the products contracted for, to anyone except the plaintiff, will work no injustice or hardship upon the defendant, and as plaintiff is clearly

State v. Villeda

Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2024

Given that context, the statement that there would be “more reason” to find prejudicial error under circumstances not presented in that case is clearly dicta and, as our subsequent cases (discussed next) demonstrate, we have … The reason, we explained, is that the party’s “right to have his case tried before a fair, impartial and qualified jury remains unimpaired[.]”

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.

Daly v. Wolfard Bros., Inc.

204 Or. 241 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1955

The evidence clearly established the fact that there was to be no charge for the "tuning up" of the motor. Such work come within the warranty. … It is argued by defendant that its refusal to deliver possession of the car to plaintiff was a limited or qualified refusal.

Pugsley v. Smyth

98 Or. 448 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1921

This is the general rule established by the authority of judicial precedents. There are a comparatively few jurisdictions in which the rule is rejected. … The husband was of course a competent witness, and, moreover, the wife becomes a qualified witness when the husband testifies in his own behalf, for by the express terms of Section 734, L. O.

State v. Villeda

Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2024

Given that context, the statement that there would be “more reason” to find prejudicial error under circumstances not presented in that case is clearly dicta and, as our subsequent cases (discussed next) demonstrate, we have … The reason, we explained, is that the party’s “right to have his case tried before a fair, impartial and qualified jury remains unimpaired[.]”

State v. Haley

371 Or. 108 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 1, 2023

Haley deciding what culpable mental state is required to establish the element of “enter or remain unlawfully”—an issue not presented in this case—we note that the minimum culpable mental state (criminal negligence) would … Applying that definition, we further conclude that the room that defendant entered qualified as a “sep- arate unit” and thus a separate “building,” and, therefore, that the trial court did not err when it denied defendant

Shipman v. Portland Const. Co.

64 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1913

the defendants Keeney, Gill, and Martin, it appears that at the first meeing of the board of directors of which they were members a resolution was adopted by that body to the effect that $5,000 be paid to each director qualifying … It is well settled that for actual services of real value a corporation may issue in payment therefor its fully paid-up capital stock, but, in order to support such a transaction, it must clearly appear that the transaction

Smith v. Smith

205 Or. 286 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1955

The arguments are adequately reviewed by Professor Prosser whose modern viewpoint is, as usual, qualified by a mellow scholarship. … It has also been suggested that the right of action in a wife should be qualified by applying the doctrine of assumption of risk in various cases arising within the purview of the marital relation.

State v. Moore

334 Or. 328 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 11, 2002

At the pretrial hearing on his motion in limine, and again at trial, defendant objected to admission of Olea’s hearsay statements, arguing that (1) at least some of the statements did not qualify for admission under OEC 803 … First, in conformity with the Framers’ preference for face-to-face accusation, the Sixth Amendment establishes a rule of necessity.

Killam v. Tenney

229 Or. 134 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1961

It would be unreasonable to say that anything in the concluding paragraph of the letter of February twenty-fifth was intended to qualify the exercise of the option so clearly expressed in the first part of the letter or could … There are no words of ultimatum in the letter, and it is arguable that it was not written with the intention of qualifying the acceptance in any manner.

State v. Duggan

215 Or. 151 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1958

Each fact necessary to establish guilt must be proved to the satisfaction of the jury and beyond reasonable doubt. … The jury was properly and clearly instructed by the judge as to the way they should treat the circumstantial evidence, and there is sufficient evidence to support their verdict.

Durbin v. Oregon Railroad

17 Or. 5 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1888

This is claimed upon the ground that, from the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, it clearly appeared that it was the negligence of the plaintiff which occasioned the collision and caused her injury. … Upon this state of facts, what doubtful or qualifying circumstances does the conduct of the plaintiff present which excuses her from the plain consequences of her negligent acts?

Collins v. Farmers Insurance

312 Or. 337 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1991

It is important to analyze why imposing this duty to read and understand the policy is neither clearly required nor clearly rejected by past decisions of this court. … Until recently, the effect of the family-household exclusion was fully consistent with the public policies underlying interspousal immunity and parental immunity.

Traver v. Naylor

126 Or. 193 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1928

Dennis testified that decedent said: “If ever I recover I will marry her bnt I am not qualified to marry her. As far as the finances, she is provided for; she will get all if I die.” F. P. … That plaintiff fully performed the contract upon her part is clearly established by the evidence. She remained with him during all of the time he was in the hospital and assisted in nursing and caring for him.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Rudie

290 Or. 471 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1981

However, we continued by noting that failure to respond to inquiries by the Bar is not itself clearly condemned by a disciplinary rule, independent of what bearing it may have on the matter under inquiry. … Maybe your medical doctor would be one that would be so qualified.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Balocca

342 Or. 279 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 2007

The Bar must establish misconduct by clear and convincing evidence, which “means evidence establishing that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” In re Cohen, 316 Or 657, 659 , 853 P2d 286 (1993). … He also sought to establish child support. As to both those issues, Taylor’s financial status would have been at issue.

Smith v. ABEL

211 Or. 571 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1957

And the experience base was hardly that of an established business. … The evidence clearly shows a dispute as to the requirements of the contract, which, in view of the ambiguities in the contract, was understandable.

Schoenheit/Unger v. Rosenblum

356 Or. 783 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2015

The agency shall be considered established if the majority of votes favor the establishment. … (b) Does not impair the rights and immunities provided under ORS 30.930 to 30. 947. SECTION 10.