Case law

State v. Longoria

17 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 1, 1974

As such, it was clearly prejudicial. I would reverse. … You made your point clearly the second day that there would be six and three.

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.

State v. Sells

324 Or. App. 29 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 1, 2023

In conjunction with the voluntary intoxication defense in which you are able to take * * * into consideration as to whether or not she had a qualifying disorder for purposes of intent or lack thereof.” … The latter half of the sentence establishes that evidence of voluntary intoxication can be considered to determine the defendant’s mental state at the time of an offense.

Block v. DEA Properties-2 LLC

315 Or. App. 525 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 3, 2021

“To determine an easement’s purpose, we first look to the words of the easement, viewing them in the context of the entire document; if the words clearly express the easement’s purpose, our analysis ends.” Knight v. … The court held that DEA had established the exis- tence of an implied easement by clear and convincing evi- dence and entered judgment in favor of DEA on its coun- terclaim.

Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach (A184314)

334 Or. App. 762 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 5, 2024

The CBMC establishes setback requirements for development bordering the ocean, including the property at issue. … For example, a “retaining wall” that is less than four feet in height may qualify as a “landscape improvement” and is thus excluded from the definition of “structure.” CBMC 17.04.540.

Rowden v. Hogan Woods, LLC

306 Or. App. 658 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 2020

Nothing in the record clearly establishes that the “right to occupancy” of Unit 112 at Hogan Woods is lim- ited to employees by virtue of their work at Hogan Woods. … First, the majority opinion observes, “Nothing in the record clearly establishes that the ‘right to occupancy’ of Unit 112 at Hogan Woods is limited to employees by virtue of their work at Hogan Woods.” 306 Or App at 674.

City of Mosier v. Hood River Sand, Gravel & Ready-Mix, Inc.

206 Or. App. 292 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 2006

ORS chapter 197 establishes a general policy of land use planning throughout the state and clearly applies to both cities and counties. … According to HRSG, those experts, consultants, and workers used the road to get to and from the quarry site, and that use should be regarded as sufficiently related to the mining operations to qualify as “continuing” the

State v. Le

327 Or. App. 129 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 19, 2023

. “* * * * * “The context within which these activities took place leave no doubt that the purpose of his physical touching does qualify as sexual contact under the statute.” … “An abuse of discretion occurs when a court exer- cises its discretion to an end not justified by, and clearly against, evidence and reason.” State v.

State v. Azar

318 Or. App. 724 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 6, 2022

ORS 164.015, thus, describes the different categories of conduct that qualify as theft. … That hypothetical, the majority posits, demon- strates that the legislature clearly intended to broaden the scope of the statute to, well, fencing.

Costco Wholesale Corp. v. City of Beaverton

206 Or. App. 380 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 2006

City of Beaverton, 50 Or LUBA 476, 484-85 (2005) (emphasis in original); 7 see also id. at 501 (Holstun, concurring) (“[T]here is nothing in ORS 222.750 that prohibits a city from identifying a territory that qualifies for … Petitioners assert that the city failed to establish the validity of some of the predicate “encircling” annexations and, thus, failed to establish as a factual matter that petitioners’ properties were “surrounded” under any

TPC, LLC v. Water Resources Dept.

308 Or. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 2020

filed a limited motion to inter- vene for the purpose of bringing a motion to dismiss for fail- ure to join the Tribes in the petitions as a necessary and indispensable party that cannot be joined due to its sover- eign immunity … The Hyde Agreement qualifies as a rotation agree- ment pursuant to ORS 540.150 and OAR 690-250-0080. “5. As a contract signed by the agency, the Hyde Agreement is a final order as defined in ORS 183.310(6)(b).

McCann v. Oregon Liquor Control Commission

27 Or. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 29, 1976

. #6060; penalty — 45 day suspension effective 8-19-65 and indefinitely thereafter to permit transfer to other qualified persons at another location. * * *” The hearing referee overruled the objection to the exhibit on the … Bd. of Medical Exam., 16 Or App 381, 393 , 518 P2d 1042 , rev den (1974), to be sufficient to bar the establishment of good moral character.

Christofferson v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, ETC.

57 Or. App. 203 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 3, 1982

This record establishes that Scientology is a religion and that the Mission is a religious organization. … The state of mind of the one accused of making fraudulent representations is clearly at issue where one of the elements to be shown is the speaker’s knowledge of the falsity of the representation being made.

Kasliner v. Dept. of Human Services

330 Or. App. 85 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 4, 2024

He noted that a qualified polygrapher had administered a polygraph examination to petitioner and had concluded that petitioner truthfully denied sexually abusing L. … It also established an open-ended procedure for reviewing orders in other than contested cases. Id. §18(6).

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.

State v. Shields

309 Or. App. 516 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 3, 2021

As such, the universe of relevant legal issues is clearly defined, and the questions presented on appeal are purely questions of law. … The state responds that “the court correctly cal- culated defendant’s criminal history score because some of the defendant’s Georgia convictions qualify as person felo- nies or Class A person misdemeanors under Oregon law

State v. Monaco

336 Or. App. 684 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 11, 2024

2020) (“Although the statements imply that it ultimately would be better for defendant to present his side of the matter to refute the vic- tim’s account, we do not view the detectives’ statements as an implied promise of immunity … Platt, expressly described the new felony-murder statute as creat- ing “strict liability” for death caused in the commission of a qualifying felony, while explaining why he supported adding the affirmative defense now codified

Kaste v. Land O'Lakes Purina Feed, LLC

284 Or. App. 233 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 8, 2017

Defendant asserted that the limitation on recovery of consequential damages precluded plaintiffs from obtaining any relief on their tort claims because, in defendant’s view, all tort damages sought by plaintiffs qualified … The determination of the sufficiency of the pleading is then made by looking at the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the claim rather than the sufficiency of the pleading.” Davis v.

State v. Monaco

336 Or. App. 684 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 11, 2024

2020) (“Although the statements imply that it ultimately would be better for defendant to present his side of the matter to refute the vic- tim’s account, we do not view the detectives’ statements as an implied promise of immunity … Platt, expressly described the new felony-murder statute as creat- ing “strict liability” for death caused in the commission of a qualifying felony, while explaining why he supported adding the affirmative defense now codified

Hanson v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

156 Or. App. 198 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 1998

In his explanation, Courtney explicitly referred to the Rogers report and its list of diagnoses — including drug and alcohol dependency — that qualified as personality disorders. … Thus, the administrative rule, promulgated long after enactment, does not establish what the legislature intended the statute to mean. *216 The majority refers to the Supreme Court’s decision in Mueller for support.