Case law

State v. Evensen

298 Or. App. 294 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 26, 2019

Defendant posits that the homeowner's exception thus ensures that "a 'subscriber or member of their family' is immune to prosecution for listening in or overhearing conversations on open phone lines or radio transmissions … The state observes that the legislature clearly intended the term to have that meaning when it adopted the 1955 legislation, before it added the paragraph (c) prohibition against obtaining face-to-face communications.

White v. Reyes

335 Or. App. 124 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 18, 2024

Nooth, 257 Or App 704, 712, 308 P3d 225, rev den, 354 Or 491 (2013) (concluding “that plaintiff failed to establish a 140 White v. … Reyes prescribed” and “to make no further changes to Petitioner’s medications until [an] examination and review of [the] drug regimen by a qualified [p]hysiatrist.”

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)).

State v. Rodriguez

217 Or. App. 24 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 19, 2007

Where one construction of a statute is likely, given its text and context, and another is merely plausible, the likely meaning should be preferred by a court unless the legislative history of the statute clearly shows that … Admittedly, it would have been cleaner had the legislature also imposed the sanction for those four or greater in number DUII conviction offenders who do not qualify as felony offenders.

State v. Menefee

268 Or. App. 154 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 31, 2014

constitutional rights or any other rights at any time. *161 “I’m a natural born American citizen as a common man of the sovereign people arising under the original jurisdiction of the de jure constitution of 1789 as amended by the qualified … I think *170 the record from yesterday and previously his own statements on the record are more than sufficient to establish that he is waiving his right to be present.”

State v. Sell

328 Or. App. 82 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 13, 2023

“Even if an error does not qualify as harmless, our assessment of where it falls on the spectrum of likelihood of having affected the verdict can be an import- ant consideration to the exercise of discretion. … The statute defines “resist” as “the use or threatened use of violence, physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physi- cal injury to any person and includes, but is not limited to, behavior clearly

State v. Stonaker

149 Or. App. 728 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 1997

Despite these questions concerning its justification, however, the exception is well established.” 2 McCormick on Evidence, § 272, at 216 (4th ed 1992) (footnote omitted). … We note, moreover, that the factors the trial court identified are not the only factors established in this record that are material to the spontaneity-of-the-utterance requirement.

State v. Cooper

120 Or. App. 490 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 19, 1993

Defendant clearly objected to Brooks' presence in the courtroom, as well as her placement at the counsel table. … Clearly, the rule places an affirmative burden only on the party seeking an exemption under subsection (3).

C-LAZY-K RANCH, INC. v. Alexanderson

243 Or. App. 168 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 25, 2011

Although the evidence at trial did not conclusively establish that the road that currently exists from point X to the county line sits in the exact roadbed that was surveyed in 1884, it was established to our satisfaction … Maling Road and Coon Creek Road, and to give the other terms containing the inexact qualifiers “at or near” and “more or less” effect as general locators, but not as controlling terms.

State v. Moore

159 Or. App. 144 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 17, 1999

Defendant first argues that, even if Olea's statements otherwise qualified as excited utterances, the admission of those statements without a showing of Olea's unavailability violated constitutional confrontation protection … The state concedes that it did not establish or attempt to establish that Olea was unavailable.

Hannan v. Good Samaritan Hospital

4 Or. App. 178 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 1970

By its makeup the jury is peculiarly immune from external pressures. Its 12 people are more likely than a full-time professional entity to reflect a cross-section of philosophies and experiences. … Put in another way, the findings are there; they have been made by a legislatively-established agency which is expected to have, by virtue of the repetitive nature of its specialized function, some expertise.

Zyst v. Kelly

338 Or. App. 597 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 12, 2025

Nor does petitioner point to evidence in the record to establish prej- udice. … Nooth, 365 Or 771, 788, 453 P3d 1274 (2019) (“[A] party’s failure to object to evidence that is clearly directed to a new issue constitutes implicit con- sent to trial of that issue.”).

State v. Berg

223 Or. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 29, 2008

Whether those facts establish that the consent was voluntary, however, is a legal issue that we review independently. … Rules of preservation are meant to ensure that the parties’ positions are presented clearly to the trial court and that parties are not taken by surprise, misled, or denied opportunities to meet an argument. State v.

State v. McCormack/Senter

321 Or. App. 551 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 8, 2022

Accordingly, “[t]he right to fish ‘at all usual and accustomed’ places may, of course, not be qualified by the State.” Puyallup Tribe v. … Though it is well established that that burden falls upon the state, it is less well established what degree of proof is required to satisfy that burden.9 The appellate courts of this state have not previously addressed that

In Re the Marriage of Winczewski

188 Or. App. 667 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 16, 2003

She clearly had become more controlling and domineering, but that had been a trait off and on that we had worked on in therapy. … Most importantly, in our recent custody cases in which we interpreted ORS 109.119 (1997) to salvage its constitutionality, we established that the Hruby standard provides guidance in determining whether a nonparent has established

Mossberg v. University of Oregon

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

The University contends that plaintiff's complaint about its treatment of the Harvard equipment qualifies as a complaint that he was wronged in connection with one of the "other conditions of [his] employment" within the … 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

Faverty v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oregon, Inc.

133 Or. App. 514 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 22, 1995

The facts recited in this opinion are uncontroverted unless specifically qualified in the opinion. … Clearly, defendant was making a policy argument under common law theory that employers should not be considered negligent under these circumstances.

State v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2023

The trial court denied the MJOA, conclud- ing that the evidence was sufficient to establish the elements of each offense. … As discussed above, a qualifying threat under Rangel must “instill[ ] in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker.” Rangel, 328 Or at 303.

State v. Le

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.

Hamel v. Johnson

173 Or. App. 448 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 25, 2001

That discussion will also establish that we should overrule Meadows if it established the principle that the lead opinion contends that it did. It is axiomatic that administrative agencies must follow their own rules. … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor