Case law

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

State v. Ovalle

325 Or. App. 538 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 2023

He assigns error to the trial judge’s denial of his ORS 14.210(1)(c) motion to dis- qualify judge for specific cause—consanguinity within three degrees of kinship to an attorney in the office of the district attorney. … in making the decision that is subject to review.” 3 ORS 14.250 provides, as relevant, that: “No judge of a circuit court shall sit to hear or try any suit, action, matter or proceeding when it is established

State ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Delta Inn, Inc.

168 Or. App. 50 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 31, 2000

At a hearing considering Delta’s objections to ODOT’s proposed final judgment and cost bill, the trial court observed: “[I]n any normal understanding of the word, the State clearly won the case. … See ORCP 45 D (“Any matter admitted pursuant to this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.”).

State v. Castilleja

215 Or. App. 235 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 26, 2007

Because as I read the affidavit as a whole, I think that she was clearly upset about what she thought was going on. “She was clearly mistaken in at least one regard, and that was with respect to Ms. … In that light, the trial court was clearly wrong when it opined that the affidavit was defective because it failed to demonstrate Loewen’s basis of knowledge.

State v. Somfleth

168 Or. App. 414 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 21, 2000

Defendant’s memorandum in support of suppression and related oral argument clearly challenged the legality of the officers’ initial entry onto the property. … Glines, 134 Or App 21 , 894 P2d 516 , rev den 321 Or 512 (1995), as exemplifying a more qualified, circumstantial approach to “implied consent.”

Parks v. BOARD OF CTY. COM'RS OF TILLAMOOK CTY.

11 Or. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 18, 1972

Like the property owners involved in the above two cases, intervenor in tills case no longer owns lots that qualify for the substandard lot exception. … Eespondenfs duties to properly administer those statutes and their zoning ordinance are clearly public in nature.

State v. Zielinski

287 Or. App. 770 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 20, 2017

Those phrases and that type of presentation by the expert witnesses would undercut the objective component which these cases clearly establish in Oregon law. … However, the commission also recognized “a need for establishing a standard to fix an average conduct to protect the general welfare.” Id.

Sterling Savings Bank v. Emerald Development Co.

266 Or. App. 312 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 2014

Cir 1916), was focused on the purchase of a judgment by the agent of one of several joint tortfeasors: “If, however, the judgment was thus in fact bought by * * * one of the joint tort feasors and judgment debtors, this clearly … We also note that even the authority from which Jackman derives the general rule calling for merger of a judgment assigned to one of several joint defendants qualifies its application in the case of contrary intent: “In 49

Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County

326 Or. App. 439 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 2023

As LUBA noted, based on the context of the DCC including DCC 22.36.025 and DCC 22.36.010(C)(1)(b), which contains a time limit for sub- mitting an application to extend a CUP, “[t]he county clearly knows how to insert a time … It could only be exercised within the contours established by the county code, and under that code, by the “precise question” submit- ted by Gemmet.

Gilbride v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 11, 2023

Father’s attorney proposed a “qualified and respected” evaluator who had conducted over 140 such 570 Gilbride v. … Sewell, 257 Or App 462, 469, 307 P3d 464, rev den, 354 Or 389 (2013) (“An abuse of discretion occurs when a court exercises its discretion to an end not justified by, and clearly against, evidence and rea- son.”

Sause and Schnitzer

312 Or. App. 71 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 3, 2021

SB 512 is clearly written. It treats male and female gamete donors the same with respect to children born using donated reproductive cells. … Of course, SB 512 is now clearly in place, and it is more than just interesting. It is the law and it does not permit such an unwieldy result.

Lowe v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

207 Or. App. 532 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 6, 2006

See, e.g., Humphers, 298 Or at 717 n 14 (“Granted that at times a court must decide a new point of law that necessarily will establish either a right in the plaintiff or a privilege or immunity in the defendant, at least … In both of those categories of cases, the courts clearly have taken as the default position that present, physical harm is the sine qua non of negligence liability.

Pete's Mountain Homeowners Ass'n v. Oregon Water Resources Department

236 Or. App. 507 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 11, 2010

Precisely what status or qualification is required to establish standing is determined by legislation; standing is not a matter of common law. People for Ethical Treatment v. Inst. … The following year, the legislature repealed both statutes and replaced them with what is now ORS 536.075, which, as we have noted, more clearly provides that judicial review of orders in contested cases lies in the Court

Hope Presbyterian Church v. Presbyterian Church

242 Or. App. 485 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 27, 2011

The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. … As we have described it, the PCUSA, with its layers of supervisory authority, clearly qualifies.

Service Employees International Union Local 503 v. State

209 Or. App. 497 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 6, 2006

That principle, however, may be qualified — or even abrogated — if the employer permits, or knowingly does not preclude, nonbusiness or personal use of its property. … Nevertheless, ERB did not conclude that those circumstances established a right of access for union-related messages.

State v. Lange

264 Or. App. 126 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 2, 2014

Second, a temporary restraint of a person’s liberty for the purpose of criminal investigation — i.e., a ‘stop’ — qualifies as a ‘seizure,’ under Article I, section 9, and must be justified by a *133 reasonable suspicion of … Hall, 339 Or 7, 25 , 115 P3d 908 (2005) (once a defendant has established the existence of a minimal factual nexus between the evidence sought to be suppressed and prior unlawful police conduct, the state is required to prove

State v. Bistrika

262 Or. App. 385 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 23, 2014

According to the court, Alexander and defendant were “clearly a direct threat to the officers at the scene and hostile from the start.” … A person who correctly felt that he had been illegally stopped, for example, could respond with unlimited violence and under an *395 exclusionary rule be immunized from criminal responsibility for any action taken after the

Mesta v. Franke

261 Or. App. 759 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 26, 2014

weight with the jury” because that opinion would be qualitatively like that of a trained detective; the pediatrician would be testifying as to ultimate issues in the case reserved for the jury; the pediatrician was not qualified … Defendant notes that the OEC 403 issue “was less clearly preserved at trial” than the vouching issue.

Rogers v. Farmers Ins. Co.

349 Or. App. 691 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 20, 2026

The parties specifically disagree as to whether the Mazda qualifies as “an insured vehicle” under that exclusion. ORS 742.504(2) includes definitions for both “insured vehicle” and “uninsured vehicle.” … We decline to create the anomaly that Farmers’s interpretation would establish, viz., while driving her owned and insured vehicle, plaintiff would have less coverage than when walking or as a passenger in another vehicle.

Mossberg v. University of Oregon

240 Or. App. 490 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 2, 2011

“To state a claim for conversion, a party must establish the intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel that so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required … Given that former faculty members do not have campus addresses and phone numbers, the rule clearly contemplates that the faculty grievance process is available only to those individuals who are employed by the University