Case law

Powell v. Bunn

185 Or. App. 334 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 11, 2002

under the First Amendment Establishment Clause is as follows: (1) the law must reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose; (2) it must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion (as distinguished … parties effectively have ignored the usual summary judgment standard of review insofar as the superintendent’s order is concerned and have cited the standard of review articulated in United Citizens, 104 Or App at 54 . 5 We qualify

State v. Merrill

303 Or. App. 107 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 18, 2020

The rule also ensures fairness to opposing parties, by requiring that “the positions of the parties are presented clearly to the initial tribunal” so that “parties are not taken by surprise, misled, or denied opportunities … It is subject to multiple compet- ing interpretations and does not conclusively and defini- tively establish a legislative intent at odds with Hendricks.

State Ex Rel. State Office for Services to Children & Families v. Frazier

152 Or. App. 568 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 25, 1998

Mother generally was good about taking Rose to the doctor when she was ill or when she needed immunizations. … Mother’s failure to change or improve her parenting skills clearly shows her inability or unwillingness to adjust her underlying belief system.

Black v. Arizala

182 Or. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 5, 2002

After the accident, the legislature amended the Tort Claims Act to make public bodies and their employees immune from liability when the injured party received such benefits. … First, many of the provisions at issue are broader than the one in the Agreement and clearly cover the parties' entire relationship, not simply a specific document.

Pioneer Resources, LLC v. D. R. Johnson Lumber Co.

187 Or. App. 341 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 24, 2003

Assume, for present purposes, that the facts of Case #1 establish mutual mistake without gross negligence by B, the seller, and that the facts of Case #2 establish unilateral mistake by B, coupled with inequitable conduct … In the present case the evidence clearly establishes that plaintiffs mistakenly believed the fence in question marked the eastern boundary of their land.

Hamilton and Hamilton

350 Or. App. 759 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 17, 2026

In addition, Husband is currently qualified for higher paying jobs with no further training. … “(i) The duration of the marriage; “(ii) The age of the parties; “(iii) The health of the parties, including their physi- cal, mental and emotional condition; “(iv) The standard of living established

Quesnoy v. Department of Revenue

286 Or. App. 359 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 28, 2017

In their fourth assignment of error, petitioners challenged the ALJ’s ruling that Quesnoy’s entire damages award was subject to garnishment and that she had not proved that $10,000 of that award qualified for the “personal … DOR expressed that position clearly during the contested case hearing: “[I]f a party is going to claim exemption they have the obligation to—they have the burden to come forward and show that they are entitled to that exemption

United States National Bank v. Duling

39 Or. App. 329 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 19, 1979

But if that word were not there, this case would not be here: clearly the mother did not remarry after the daughter became 21. … While the trust was the principal testamentary instrument of Kenneth Duling (his will poured over into the trust) he did not give his wife a general power of appointment in the trust assets which would have qualified her

Friends of the Metolius v. Jefferson County

200 Or. App. 416 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 5, 2005

With respect to the issue of whether the proposed cabins qualified as ‘tourist rental cabins,’ the board of commissioners imposed a condition requiring that the cabins be available for tourist rentals at *421 least 245 days … Since the county’s decision was not reversed, and LUBA did not establish a clear maximum owner usage, the County understood that it was to make a decision based on new findings that justified annual owner usage within the

Klamath County School District v. Teamey

207 Or. App. 250 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 2, 2006

On February 6, 2003, the district attorney wrote to Zagar and the superintendent, informing them that the district had not met its burden to establish that the reports should not be made public and ordering the district either … Defendant also argues that, without a copy of the reports at issue here, the district attorney could not appropriately fulfill his function to determine whether they qualified for a statutory exemption.

Patton v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance

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. Gortmaker

60 Or. App. 723 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 1982

The other is that it is the only practicable method for enforcing the right of qualified Negroes to serve on grand juries.” 339 US at 300 . … At the time of that order, defendant had established a practice of selecting confiscated guns for a collection that he maintained.

Twigg v. Admiral Ins. Co.

324 Or. App. 259 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 15, 2023

They contended that the defective construc- tion work qualified as an “occurrence” or accident under the relevant insurance policy. … “[T]he facts proved at trial on which liability is established may give rise to a duty to indemnify if the insured’s conduct is covered.” Id. at 403.

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 … Clearly, the legislature may not alter the requirements necessary to establish the constitutional aspects of justiciability—adversity, ripeness, and a lack of mootness.

State v. McMillin

291 Or. App. 707 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 16, 2018

Glaspey , 337 Or. 558 , 563, 100 P.3d 730 (2004), the Supreme Court established the analytical framework to determine, for purposes of ORS 161.067(2), who are the victims of a crime. … App. 389 , 160 P.3d 1013 (2007), as follows: "Where the statute defining a crime does not expressly identify the person who qualifies as a 'victim,' the court examines the statute to identify the gravamen of the crime and

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 Ex Rel. Department of Human Services v. E.K.

230 Or. App. 63 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 29, 2009

In 2006, DHS assisted with enrolling the children in public school and provided testing for JC to qualify him for special services. … As previously noted, she also refused to sign the October 2008 “Action Agreement” that established goals and expectations for her.

Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia Cnty.

297 Or. App. 628 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 2019

The county looked to OAR 660-004-0022(3), as noted, a rule establishing particular exception requirements for the siting of industrial development on rural resource land. … That advantage clearly extends to the import/export operation as a whole.

Flug v. University of Oregon

170 Or. App. 660 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 1, 2000

The medical release that plaintiff eventually delivered to defendant clearly indicated that plaintiffs doctors believed that plaintiff was unable to perform the essential functions of her job in that department. … That focus is too narrow, because a plaintiff can prevail on a retaliation claim by establishing that the defendant retaliated against her for opposing claimed discriminatory practices even if the practices were not, in fact

State v. Saunders

103 Or. App. 488 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 3, 1990

However, we also agree with the trial court that the state has not established that there were exigent circumstances. … Rather, the "reason to believe" requirement qualifies the last phrase in the statute.