Case law

TVKO v. Howland

335 Or. 527 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 24, 2003

Clearly, Oregon has no jurisdiction to regulate boxing matches held outside the state.” TVKO v. Howland, 15 OTR 335, 345-46 (2001) (emphasis in original). … Boxing matches that take place in New York, the Phillippines, or Africa are clearly beyond Oregon’s jurisdiction to regulate.

Remington v. Landolt

273 Or. 297 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1975

As to the two items included in (1), plaintiff would have been entitled to a directed verdict on the issue of liability, if clearly limited to those items, leaving only the issue of damages. … This is a part of the larger problem of establishing the scope of the privilege or immunity for governmental officers.”

Phillips v. City of Bend

192 Or. 143 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1951

upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution, and Article I, Section 20 of the Constitution of Oregon, which provides: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities … City of Alexandria, supra, and all of them are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.

Leavengood v. McGee

50 Or. 233 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1907

Plaintiff was appointed his trustee and qualified. … The evidence, we think, shows quite clearly that, when James T.

Dale v. Myers

326 Or. 356 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1998

The measure requires that the ballot title for that election contain information clearly disclosing the “percentage and amount of money which would be saved by contracting out the provision of the service.” 4 Only when three … In that statutorily controlled system, one qualified contractor is selected from among a number of bidders competing with each other.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Skagen

342 Or. 183 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2006

Additionally, the trial panel concluded that the documents that the Bar had requested were not protected by any privilege and did not qualify as work product. … The trial panel also found, however, that the Bar had not established by clear and convincing evidence that the accused had charged Anderson an illegal or clearly excessive fee in violation of DR 2-106(A) or that he had failed

State v. Betts

235 Or. 127 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1963

The above statements of fact in these two eases in our opinion clearly distinguish them from the present case. … In the present case the physician was the person best qualified to testify to a relevant fact, — was the defendant intoxicated?

State v. Colgrove

370 Or. 474 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 1, 2022

Those statutes, and the case law interpreting them, did not always clearly distinguish between the con- cepts of “appealability” and “reviewability.” … However, the history clearly demonstrates that any such increase would be attributed to the expansion of the scope of review of sentences in appeals involving misdemeanors.

First Nat. Bank v. Fire Ass'n

33 Or. 172 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1898

Chief Justice Shaw states the proposition clearly. He says : “ It is not because a man has a reputation of superior sagacity and judgment and power of reasoning that his testimony is admissible. … is quite as well established as the exception heretofore discussed.

State v. Turnidge

359 Or. 364 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 2016

If we were to deem joint trials to be “clearly inappropriate” in every such case, the statute would establish a presumption in favor of joint trials but then except the usual case to which the presumption would otherwise … That qualified as “true plan” evidence, as described by Imwinkelried.

Massey v. Seller

45 Or. 267 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1904

feet farther west than the main entrance, so that one crossing from the display room to the outside entrance would pass in a diagonal direction across the shipping ■ room, approaching the elevator shaft, but leaving it clearly … carries with it the inquiry as to what a prudent man would have done under like circumstances, and it is not for the court to teach the jury the ways of the prudent man;- for the latter, in legal contemplation, are better qualified

School District No. 1 v. Gleason

178 Or. 577 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1946

By it the Legislature clearly intended to extend the rights arising under the constitution to all the districts mentioned in Section 1, supra. … It may be objected that there are property qualifications for voters at elections on special tax levies and that the 1937 Act in dealing with election of directors establishes a different rule involving no property *593 qualifications

Soumie v. McLean

234 Or. 485 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 22, 1963

The foregoing uncontradicted testimony clearly reveals that there was no radical change in the attitude of Emilie toward either Lillian Kurman or Dee Soumie, if there was any change at all. … To the contrary, the record clearly shows that members of the Society visited Emilie infrequently.

Doe v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

352 Or. 77 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 14, 2012

BSA thus has failed to 10 show that it is clearly entitled to the mandamus remedy it seeks. … Ultimately, the court concluded that the hearings 17 outlined in former ORS 136.617 (1987) qualified as adjudications that fell within the 18 scope of Article I, section 10. Id.

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.

Ettin v. ROBINSON ET UX

221 Or. 193 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1960

However, evidence was offered, which if received would establish that Lela Mae had visited Ralph.Titus in April, 1954. … I guess I’ll just have to get immune to heart aches some' way. “Well Lela I am closing not knowing where I’m *203 going to be after another month.

Leadbetter v. Price

103 Or. 222 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1921

However, he held one share of stock in. the Crown-Columbia Pulp & Paper Co., which had been furnished him by Leadbetter, so that he could qualify as a director of *230 the concern. … This is clearly insufficient. 10. Although the foregoing considerations are decisive of the case, notice will be taken of an additional obstacle to appellant’s right to prevail in this suit.

State v. Morales

367 Or. 222 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 19, 2020

To the extent that Erickson and Rosentreter could be read as establishing such a presumption on any ground other than the now-amended statute, we expressly disavow those decisions. … A disincentive to provide security for a family member or friend who clearly qualifies for security and who fully complies with the terms of that security is, by its very nature, a policy decision to jail people

State v. Brown

297 Or. 404 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1984

Any relevant conclusions which are supported by a qualified expert witness should be received unless there are other reasons for exclusion. … We conclude no judgment of polygraph testing’s validity or potential rate of error can be established based on available scientific evidence.

City of Enterprise v. State

156 Or. 623 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 3, 1937

The individual appointed qualifies by taking an oath and furnishing a bond “in such amount as the court and the state treasurer shall determine, * * * The compensation of said municipal administrator shall be fixed by the … The act clearly contemplates equity receiver-ships for insolvent municipalities. It employs the term municipal administrator, but includes within that term all of the power usually possessed by a receiver.