Case law

State v. Heise-Fay

274 Or. App. 196 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 7, 2015

Myers also testified in more ambiguous terms that he “told her emphatically that I had no intentions of taking her into custody” without mentioning the qualifier that she be “honest and cooperative.” … She clearly was making a conscious decision how and when to cooperate with officers, presumably based upon what she believed was to her best benefit.

Wolf v. CENTRAL OREGON & PACIFIC RAILROAD

230 Or. App. 269 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 12, 2009

Plaintiffs assert that the law does not preclude them from establishing a nonexclusive right to cross the tracks. … Defendant responds that the trial court correctly concluded that the right-of-way is “immune to private prescriptive easements.” (Emphasis omitted.)

Seiu v. Das

54 P.3d 1043 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 25, 2002

We stated: "[T]he legislature established a detailed scheme for implementing reductions in teaching staffs. … The doctrine of the last antecedent, however, provides: "`Referential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent.

Hilton v. Motor Vehicles Division

93 Or. App. 388 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 12, 1988

"(g) If the person arrested submitted to the test, the person administering the test was qualified to administer the test under ORS 487.815. … It clearly provides that the suspension is for refusing or failing the test, not for committing the offense. The fact that the sanctions for the offense are penal in nature does not make suspension a penalty.

Cook v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

50 Or. App. 547 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 18, 1981

Indemnity provisions are construed against holding that coverage extends to the negligence of the indemnitee, unless a contrary intention clearly appears, expressly (see Southern Pac. Co. v. … At trial and on appeal much of the evidence and argument went to establish the applicability of Layman to the agreement in this case.

Smith v. Dep't of Corr.

298 Or. App. 190 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 2019

The inmate shall clearly state the *** religious item *** requested. "(3) The chaplain or designee will review the request to determine if it is covered by established rule or operational practice and respond to the inmate … Accordingly, when such a request is made, the chaplain must determine whether the item qualifies for a religious accommodation under a DOC rule or operational practice and, if the item qualifies for a religious accommodation

Noble v. Department of Fish & Wildlife

250 Or. App. 252 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 31, 2012

Stahl’s fishway approval letters to both Lytle and Stoyan clearly demonstrated “how water depths, water velocities, water drops, jump pools, structure sizing, and fish-injury precautions” provide adequate fish passage. … See ORS 537.409 (setting forth the permit application process for qualifying small reservoirs, which includes a review of injury to water rights or adverse impact on existing fishery resources and a public interest review

GUNDERSON, LLC. v. City of Portland

243 Or. App. 612 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 2011

To satisfy the standards, the property owner must spend one percent of the project value (up to a maximum expenditure of $200,000) to (1) plant vegetation on the site, (2) build a qualifying eco-roof on-site, or (3) pay the … In the city’s view, “there is nothing in Goal 15 prohibiting cities from adopting regulations or discretionary land use review processes or dictating that all development within the greenway is immune from development review

Towe v. SACAGAWEA, INC.

246 Or. App. 26 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 12, 2011

Even if the parties invoke a particular relationship to establish the existence of a duty of care on the part of the defendant, the scope of that particular duty nonetheless may be limited to harms to the plaintiff that were … The court intervenes only when it can say that the actor’s conduct clearly meets the standard or clearly falls below it.’ ” 303 Or at 17-18 .

State v. Swader

72 Or. App. 593 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 13, 1985

The victim’s statement clearly is relevant to the case. … The court was careful to qualify that statement in United States v.

Owens and Owens

307 Or. App. 418 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 4, 2020

spousal support. “(9) Based on the above factors, spousal maintenance is appropriate so that Wife can enjoy a standard of living not overly disproportionate to the standard of living of the parties as established … “Absent a qualifying change in circumstances, a trial court lacks authority to modify an award of spousal support.” Id.

Marsh v. Saif Corp. (In re Comp. of Marsh)

297 Or. App. 486 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 2019

We acknowledge, however, that the board's order does not clearly state that it rejected claimant's argument for that reason, and not because claimant failed to persuade the board that the injury existed. … employer at injury for the 52 weeks prior to the date of injury. *** For workers employed less than 52 weeks *** insurers must use the actual weeks of employment *** with the employer at injury or all earnings, if the worker qualifies

In Re Am

227 Or. App. 216 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 1, 2009

Mother explained that he had recently received immunizations and that his unusual behavior was a side effect. The Criders returned to their residence in Oregon City with A; mother stayed at the apartment. … proved its case under ORS 419B.502, we do not discuss the court's findings or conclusions regarding ORS 419B.504 except to note that several of the allegations in the state's petition relevant to that statute were quite clearly

Riverview Condominium Ass'n v. Cypress Ventures, Inc.

266 Or. App. 574 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 29, 2014

Alternatively, Morse argued that he was immune from personal liability because all of his actions were taken in his capacity as a corporate officer. … That contention is clearly incorrect in the light of Beveridge and Taylor .

State v. Branstetter

181 Or. App. 57 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 24, 2002

to ‘transfer [m] what was clearly intended as a civil remedy into a criminal penalty[.]’ ” Hudson, 522 US at 99 (some citations omitted). … This is something that we’ve established outside of this hearing.”

State v. McClure

256 Or. App. 200 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 17, 2013

It merely extends the statute beyond ‘behavior clearly intended to prevent being taken into custody’ to behavior intended to resist custodial status after a person is taken into custody. *** The legislature defined arrest … Section 7 of the bill established a task force to study the arrest authority of parole and probation officers over nonsupervised persons.

Watson v. Banducci

158 Or. App. 223 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 1999

If those terms clearly express the easement’s purpose, our analysis ends. Tipperman v. Tsiastsos, 327 Or 539, 544-45 , 964 P2d 1015 (1998); Kell, 154 Or App at 426 . … As earlier discussed, an easement is, by definition, a private right of way unless otherwise qualified.

State v. Nebeker

350 Or. App. 357 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 10, 2026

The fact that a statement qualifies as an excited utterance—and consequently is admissible as a matter of state law governing hearsay—does not exempt it from Confrontation Clause protection. State v. … For example, structured interrogations taking place at the police station and eliciting recorded statements about events that occurred in the past are clearly testimonial. Crawford, 54 US at 51-53, 65-69.

Kazlauskas v. KBBP, LLC

248 Or. App. 555 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 14, 2012

This document shall clearly spell out our percentages of participation as to make clear to any party acting on either of our behalves. … Furthermore, Emmert asserted, any qualifying “part performance” must be clearly referable to the contract, and Kazlauskas’s conduct did not meet that standard.

Quail Hollow West Owners Ass'n v. Brownstone Quail Hollow, LLC

206 Or. App. 321 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 2006

Even if that were so, it would not be sufficient to establish that the association is the real party in interest. … The Restatement of Property section 5, comment c (1936), likewise refers to an “interest in land or other thing” as “rights, privileges, powers, and immunities with regard to specific land.”