Case law

Kasliner v. Dept. of Human Services

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).

White v. Reyes

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.”

State ex rel. Icon Groupe, LLC v. Washington County

272 Or. App. 688 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 5, 2015

Although Icon’s applications on their faces appear to propose permanent signs conveying a Memorial Day salutation, the county did not dispute (and still does not dispute) that such permanent Memorial Day signs qualified as … Slusher established a general rule that local officials can challenge the constitutionality of a law in a mandamus action only in narrow circumstances.

Patton v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co.

238 Or. App. 101 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 20, 2010

The court concluded: "The reasons for limiting recovery to the amount actually expended for repair or replacement seem reasonable, and such limitations should be enforced if it is clearly stated in the insurance contract. … However, Smith also consistently qualified those statements by reminding plaintiff that his right to replacement-cost coverage was subject to the conditions and terms of the policy, including the requirement that construction

State v. Juarez-Hernandez

316 Or. App. 741 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 5, 2022

If the declarant is unavailable to testify, the statement may be admitted only if the declarant was less than 12 years old (or more than 65 years old) when the statement was made and “the proponent establishes that the time … As we have previ- ously described it, OEC 803(18a)(b) creates “two doors,” and qualifying statements are admissible if the proponent of the evidence “passes through either of those doors.” State v.

State v. Criswell

282 Or. App. 146 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 9, 2016

. * * * For her to then blurt that out I think clearly could be indifferent to the consequence.” … Here, unlike in Bucholz , we cannot conclude that findings necessary to satisfy Partain might have been easily established.

State v. Mosqueda-Rivera-Burdette

344 Or. App. 238 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 2025

Indeed, on appeal, we require appellants to establish that there was trial court error rather than requir- ing respondents to establish that there was not. … But, as noted earlier, we require appel- lants to establish that there was trial court error rather than requiring respondents to establish that there was not.

State v. Wesley

254 Or. App. 697 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2013

The commentary further suggested that, although the concepts embodied in first-degree murder were reflected in the newly revised statute, certain concepts embodied in second-degree murder would qualify as murder under the … The answer clearly is “yes;” they would be liable for the murder of WJW under the felony-murder rule, as codified in the 1971 Criminal Code at ORS 163.115(l)(c) (1971), and in the current Criminal Code at ORS 163.115(l)(b

State v. Mosqueda-Rivera-Burdette

344 Or. App. 238 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 2025

Indeed, on appeal, we require appellants to establish that there was trial court error rather than requir- ing respondents to establish that there was not. … But, as noted earlier, we require appel- lants to establish that there was trial court error rather than requiring respondents to establish that there was not.

State v. Bobbitt

249 Or. App. 181 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 4, 2012

Those provisions clearly were designed to apply to circumstances such as these, where a law enforcement agency has reason to believe that financial records held by a bank would be pertinent to a criminal investigation. [7 … specifically, the majority opinion concludes that, when a bank employee's own suspicion is derived from a Notice of Intent to Seize submitted by a police officer that references a criminal forfeiture statute, it does not qualify

Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County

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.

Higgins v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Branch

170 Or. App. 542 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 25, 2000

Here, the state has reserved eligibility for license plate registration to those who meet its statutory qualifications. [15] Those who qualify must then "obtain permission" from DMV in order to obtain the custom license plate … In my view, what is clearly a regulation of an individual's speech does not become something else merely because of the state's interest.

State v. Capell

156 Or. App. 582 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 28, 1998

The court concluded that “the legislative history of this section, testimony at congressional hearings, and debates on the floor of Congress, inescapably lead to the conclusion that [Title III] establishes a broad prohibition … Indeed, such a reading of Scott would require us to assume that the Supreme Court intended to overrule or qualify its earlier decisions in Gelbard and United States v.

State v. MOMENI

234 Or. App. 193 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 3, 2010

OEC 404(3) does not require the state to demonstrate that the testimony squarely qualifies under one of the listed categories in the statute, or that it demonstrates a distinctive methodology, or even that the uncharged acts … If the only tendency of the disputed evidence is to show that defendant is the kind of man who sexually attacks women, then the legislature clearly intends that the evidence be excluded.

Department of Human Services v. B. A. S.

232 Or. App. 245 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 25, 2009

The statute was enacted in 2001 as part of a comprehensive bill drafted by the Juvenile Code Revision Work Group of the Oregon Law Commission to establish consistent rules of procedure in juvenile court dependency cases. … Additionally, the public’s considerable interest in maintaining the finality of adoption judgments is clearly reflected in legislative enactments.

Coos Waterkeeper v. Port of Coos Bay Oregon

284 Or. App. 620 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 5, 2017

We *638 begin with petitioners’ assertion that the freshwater activities constituted “channel relocation” involving the taking of more than 50 cubic yards of material from a water of the state and, therefore, would qualify … The Port’s permit application itself clearly requested authorization to remove the berm as part of the overall project.

Keller v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

197 Or. App. 450 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 9, 2005

The record is also clear, however, that plaintiff was repeatedly told that his doctors could not establish an actual cause for his disease. … addition to the evidence provided by defendants, plaintiff provided evidence that his claim for Workers’ Compensation benefits was denied for lack of evidence of asbestos-related disease. * * * [P]laintiffs counsel has a qualified

State v. Dart

312 Or. App. 288 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 16, 2021

Because defendant’s assignments of error address pretrial rulings on whether defendant would be allowed to 1 ORS 161.200 establishes the choice-of-evils defense. … Freih, 270 Or App 555, 559, 348 P3d 324 (2015) (“We assume without deciding that a threatened psychological harm to a defendant or a third party could, in some circumstances, qualify as a ‘private injury’ within the meaning

Roop v. PARKER NORTHWEST PAVING, CO.

194 Or. App. 219 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 21, 2004

Sullivan, 376 US 254 , 84 S Ct 710 , 11 L Ed 2d 686 (1964), they would have been immune from liability for defamation in the absence of proof of actual malice. … issue in Erlandson , in which we explained that less is required of counsel in bringing a civil suit than in initiating a criminal action: “ ‘Sometimes this is expressed by saying that want of probable cause must be “very clearly

Bialostosky v. Cummings

319 Or. App. 352 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 27, 2022

Similarly, we have concluded that a “roster of names of substitute teachers, prepared by the school dis- trict, clearly relates to the conduct of the public’s business in allowing temporary replacements to be found for regular … Even assuming, arguendo, that a public hospital operating room report, a list of substitute teachers, or a list of concealed-carry permit holders establish the outer bound- aries of what constitutes the “public’s business