Case law

State v. Adams

340 Or. App. 661 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 29, 2025

And that’s basically establishing your best known match for this particular firearm.” … “In order to qualify as science, a proposition ‘must be derived by the scientific method.’

Love v. Polk County Fire District

209 Or. App. 474 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 6, 2006

Specifically, she believed that the members of the committee in charge of training the fire service personnel were not qualified for that responsibility. … Here, the legislature has recognized the importance of “whistleblowing” by public employees — but only to a qualified extent.

Farmer v. Premo

283 Or. App. 731 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 23, 2017

She did not call Reid, the better-qualified expert, because his testimony evidently would have added nothing to what Gover had already told the jury. … counsel would have asserted the claim,” in order to establish deficient performance.

Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Development Commission

261 Or. App. 259 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 2014

Thus, the county found that, based on the factors, it could qualify for either an urban or rural reserve designation. … Thus, we agree with Barkers that LCDC lacks authority to affirm a local decision if evidence in the record “clearly supports” it.

Lee v. Appraiser Certification & Licensure Board

160 Or. App. 622 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 19, 1999

I certify that any person so named is qualified to perform the tasks. … “If the principal appraiser signs the report alone, the contribution of the assistant must be acknowledged (Standards Rule 2-3) and the specific tasks performed by the assistant should be clearly stated.

State v. Vasquez-Santiago

301 Or. App. 90 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 2019

The court’s decision in Jackson did not establish a hard-and-fast test for evaluating whether the state has met its burden in a given case. … On the one hand, the detectives made statements that qualified what they were offering defendant by telling him that they were not in the position to make promises to him.

In Re Compensation of Wild

237 Or. App. 454 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 29, 2010

In addition, OAR 436-030-0020(8), “Requirements for Claim Closure,” specifies that “[a] copy of the Notice of Closure must be mailed to each of the following persons at the same time, with each copy clearly identifying the … former attorney. 6 Effective January 1, 2010, the WCD has clarified: “(1) If a worker is deceased, regardless of the cause of death, an insurer must address all future notices and correspondence to the worker’s estate or qualified

State v. Dyer

16 Or. App. 247 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 1973

Psychiatrists uniformly insist that it is possible for a person to ‘know’ intellectually what he is doing but not to ‘know’ it emotionally, and, if either of the two levels of ‘knowledge’ is missing, a person qualifies as … With my contact with him, I felt he was .able to conform to the established law.” The redirect testimony of Dr. Ragan, as set out in the original opinion, refers to both of the twin tests.

Utsey v. Coos County

176 Or. App. 524 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 26, 2001

Likewise, in Erwin , a decision on the merits concerning the validity of various rules of the Oregon State Bar clearly would have affected the Bar, yet we dismissed the plaintiff’s claims because he could not establish that … In a footnote, he elaborates: “The qualifying language in that statement recognizes that the separation-of-powers principle embodied in the Oregon Constitution prevents one branch of government from taking actions that substantially

City of Portland v. Nudelman

45 Or. App. 425 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 24, 1980

Stripped to its essential elements, plaintiff’s principle contention is that the trial court erred in the conduct of the trial in that it violated the well-established rule that in a condemnation proceeding there may be only … Plaintiff argues that the witness’s status as a corporate officer did not suffice to qualify her as competent to render an opinion. Highway Com. v. Assembly of God et al, 230 Or 167 , 368 P2d 937 (1962).

Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach (A184314)

557 P.3d 1143 · 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.

State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Pfaff

164 Or. App. 470 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 22, 1999

Absent extraordinary circumstances subverting its reliability, see, e.g., 164 Or App at 482 n 11, the doctor’s recounting of the first statement is clearly admissible under OEC 803(4) as proof that the child did, in fact, … Thus, the double hearsay is admissible to establish that the child actually threw up. That reasoning implicitly underlay our holding in Bauman .

Department of Human Services v. W. S. C.

248 Or. App. 374 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 29, 2012

U., the mother’s court-appointed counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal from a judgment establishing dependency jurisdiction with respect to her daughter. … According to father, the factors weigh clearly in favor of providing an additional procedural safeguard in his circumstances; DHS weighs things differently, particularly, the government’s interest in speedy resolution of

STATE EX REL. JUV. DEPT. v. Nguyen

96 P.3d 1219 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 2004

That is, some mutually agreed-upon understanding that establishes goals, establishes ways to measure those goals, and that you enter into that agreement in good faith, that you agree to be candid and forthcoming, that you … She also testified that, "the literature * * * speaks very clearly to the need for parents to identify * * * what the triggers were that led to the abuse."

Clackamas County v. Gay

146 Or. App. 706 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 5, 1997

The language of the statute clearly did not limit reduction from the amount payable to situations in which the damages to the insured are less than the uninsured motorist policy amount. … Particularly in the light of the historical context in which ORS 174.010 was enacted, I think it is ill-advised for us to ignore or to qualify its terms; it was the very practice of courts rewriting and invalidating statutes

Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L. B. (In re K. C. P.)

294 Or. App. 514 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 24, 2018

As we will explain, we conclude otherwise: The evidence presented at trial clearly and convincingly establishes that terminating mother's parental rights is in K's best interests. … Instead, an arrangement that would accommodate a continuing relationship with his mother was clearly within that child's best interests. Id. at 504 , 356 P.3d 1135 .

Berger Farms v. First Interstate Bank

148 Or. App. 33 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 7, 1997

Casey, 487 US 131, 138 , 108 S Ct 2302 , 101 L Ed 2d 123 (1988) (recognizing that states may establish procedural rules governing litigation in their own courts). … Inclusion of the phrase “district court” in section 4, and omission of that same qualifying language in section 3, indicates that Congress intended section 3 to apply in state courts. See Russello v.

State v. Espinosa

180 Or. App. 470 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 10, 2002

A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.” *478 To establish … legislative commentary to OEC 804(3)(c) recognized that: “ ‘A statement admitting guilt and implicating another person, made while in custody, may well spring from a desire to curry favor with the authorities and hence fail to qualify

Rose City Transit Co. v. City of Portland

18 Or. App. 369 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 19, 1974

The use of the franchise provisions to govern the valuation is clearly a benefit to the City. … The statements made by the Companies in their brief clearly support the conclusion that they assumed the risk that the franchise would be terminated.

Snyder v. Amsberry

306 Or. App. 439 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 2020

Clearly, petitioner and petitioner’s counsel have not provided this simple sub- stitute for actual support from an expert witness. “* * * * * “A court could not make a determination of mental illness that would … Whether those principles require the use of expert testimony to establish prejudice in a claim for ineffective counsel arising from a failure to investigate a mental health defense is an open question, and one we need not