Case law

State v. M. T. F.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 2023

However, as we explain more below, in the particular and unique circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to make an exception to the well-established rule that “an issue raised for the first time in an appellant … Cite as 326 Or App 371 (2023) 383 As we stated so clearly in State v.

Damascus Community Church v. Clackamas County Board of Commissioners

32 Or. App. 3 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 16, 1978

These provisions clearly have no relation to private schools. … But, even if the opponents' evidence would qualify as substantial evidence, such evidence is not sufficient to support the Board's ultimate finding of "adverse affect on the surrounding property."

Schwartz v. Washington County

Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 2024

“The analytical process for determining whether state law preempts a local law in Oregon is well established.” Owen v. City of Portland, 368 Or 661, 667, 497 P3d 1216 (2021). … Washington County a particular field, it knows how clearly to do so.” AT&T Communications v.

State v. Allen

311 Or. App. 271 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 2021

“[T]he basis for establishing the scientific validity of a differential diagnosis will vary depending on the type of injury.” Marcum, 345 Or at 248. … Additionally, Pryor does not establish that Barnes does not apply to defendant’s first-degree assault charge. In that case, we concluded that Barnes did not overrule our prior decision in State v.

State v. Martin

226 Or. App. 199 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 25, 2009

Defendant reiterated that, because Reilly had clearly testified that she had based her diagnosis on the victim’s history, he was entitled to cross-examine Reilly about her awareness and consideration of the victim’s previous … If it is offered in some other form, the trial court then determines whether the evidence qualifies for admission under one of the exceptions in OEC 412(2)(b); if it does not, again, the trial court must deny admission.

State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Gohranson

143 Or. App. 36 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 28, 1996

We also conclude that the record here clearly and convincingly establishes that integration into father’s home in the foreseeable future is highly unlikely. … The court held irrelevant the testimony of a man who claimed to have had sexual intercourse with father when the man was a minor and excluded statements made by Roby to a physician because the statements did not qualify as

Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop County

238 Or. App. 439 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 3, 2010

That term would clearly encompass construction of powerlines and gas pipelines. … In other management units, where resource values are conserved or not immunized from development effects, alterations of the estuary that produce significant impacts are allowed.

State v. Stockton

310 Or. App. 116 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 17, 2021

The evidence did not qualify for admission under the doctrine of chances because it did not arise from a series of uncommon and similar, claimed accidental events. See State v. … While testifying about the incident, T struggled to recall certain details, but she appeared to clearly recall the abuse itself. C.

Jaqua v. City of Springfield

193 Or. App. 573 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 2004

The OHP Action statement establishes a trigger for a finding that a land use action “significantly affects” a transportation facility, and it further establishes a standard of performance should there be such a circumstance … Under that assumption, there would be no violation of established performance standards, with one exception.

SAIF v. Wild

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

In addition, OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(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. Lynch

305 Or. App. 122 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 1, 2020

restitution contained in the agreement is “illegal” to the extent that it would restrict the city’s ability to seek resti- tution outside that time limit, any right the city had under Article I, section 42(1)(d), was a qualified … That was clearly how the parties, and the trial court, understood the matter.

State v. T. T.

308 Or. App. 408 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 6, 2021

Evidence of the odor of marijuana generally Previously, we have rejected arguments that non- qualified testimony about the smell of marijuana would fail to establish reasonable suspicion. … Vermont concluded that the weight of testimony about a smell of marijuana is strongly tied to testimony qualifying that smell.

City of Wood Village v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission

48 Or. App. 79 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 2, 1980

The adoption of its staff’s proposal does *90 not establish that the agency failed to perform its proper function here. … They indicated that they listened to the tapes, examined all the relevant evidence and felt qualified to vote on the matter.

State v. Miller

347 Or. App. 145 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 19, 2026

On appeal, defendant argues that the testimony was not relevant for the purposes the state identified because H did not delay reporting and because “the prior contacts were not clearly sexual in nature.” … have engaged 2 At trial, the state noted that we had essentially already determined, in Williams, that the evidence was admissible scientific evidence and that the expert the state called at trial, Schumann, was qualified

State v. Sparks

267 Or. App. 181 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 26, 2014

The court reasoned: “Defendant clearly had a cognizable privacy interest in the content of his telephone calls. … However, undoubtedly, in numerous contexts, a person will have some control over premises yet in no way qualify as the temporary custodian of children on those premises.

Spearman v. Progressive Classic Insurance

276 Or. App. 114 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 27, 2016

We conclude from the statutory text and context that the issues that are within the scope of ORS 742.061(3) are the issues of liability and damages that an insured would have to establish in an action against the uninsured … The defense of “release” asserted in Cardenas is clearly an issue beyond the issues of liability and damages that the insured would confront in an action against the uninsured motorist.

Greenfield v. Multnomah County

259 Or. App. 687 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 2013

, so long as it (1) otherwise qualifies as a ‘fee-based activity to promote the sale of farm crops’ and (2) is conducted entirely outdoors.” … As noted, ORS 215.283 provides, in part: “(1) The following uses may be established in any area zoned for exclusive farm use: * * * * “(o) Farm stands if: “(A) The structures are designed and used for the sale of farm crops

Lane Unified Bargaining Council/SLEA/OEA/NEA v. SOUTH LANE SCH. DIST. 45J3

169 Or. App. 280 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 2, 2000

Connell, 53 Or App 933, 937 , 632 P2d 1385 , rev den 292 Or *287 109 (1981) (offeror may restrict the manner of acceptance, provided the intention to do so is clearly expressed). … have verbally told Carr that the Association and Rogge accepted the District’s offer on June 4, the document that she prepared immediately thereafter to detail the settlement contained terms that materially changed and qualified

Olson v. STATE MORTUARY AND CEMETERY BD.

230 Or. App. 376 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 19, 2009

Myrtle Creek is licensed to operate a funeral establishment, and Olson is its manager and part owner. … The SFGSSs that petitioners maintained for each customer were kept as a part of their record and clearly were part of the “funeral service, cemetery or crematory record” that licensees were prohibited from altering by both

Howe v. Greenleaf

260 Or. App. 692 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 29, 2014

We must determine whether plaintiffs have established as a matter of law and uncontroverted fact that their title is superior to that of defendants. … “[T]o qualify for injunctive relief, it must be shown that the conduct to be enjoined is ‘probable or threatened.’” Id. (quoting McCombs et al v. McClelland, 223 Or 475, 485 , 354 P2d 311 (1960)).