Case law

State v. Simon

294 Or. App. 840 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 15, 2018

COMPETENCY We turn to whether the record establishes that defendant was not competent to be tried or sentenced. … The court qualified each part of the test by adding "to the extent that *866 understanding and participation are called for in a sentencing hearing."

State v. Pedersen

338 Or. App. 362 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 5, 2025

Existing case law establishes some types of pretrial events as critical stages of a criminal proceeding for right- to-counsel purposes. See, e.g., Argersinger v. … On the latter point, we rea- soned somewhat summarily that “[t]he arraignment con- templated by statute clearly is a critical stage of a criminal 374 State v.

Unruh v. St. Charles Health Systems, Inc.

324 Or. App. 343 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 23, 2023

Plaintiff opposed defendants’ motion for summary judgment, including submitting an ORCP 47 E declara- tion in which plaintiff’s counsel attested that plaintiff had “retained an unnamed qualified expert witness who is avail … In doing so, the court clearly accepted the parties’ framing of 346 Unruh v. St. Charles Health Systems, Inc.

State v. Christian

249 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 21, 2012

The court then applied a "well-established meaning" of the word "filed" to define the meaning of the word. … mental state, it is also established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly."

State Ex Rel. Department of Human Services v. Radiske

208 Or. App. 25 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2006

The state concedes that it failed to establish that ground for termination under ORS 419B.506 and, on de novo review, we agree. See State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. … She also has not identified a realistic plan for supporting M in the event that she does not qualify for social security benefits.

State v. Hudson

253 Or. App. 327 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 7, 2012

Although officers did not formally place defendant under arrest, see ORS 133.005(1), they clearly placed a temporary restraint on and, therefore, stopped him inside his home; under the circumstances, when told to come out … “To determine whether the state has established that the facts are objectively reasonable [to establish probable cause], we examine the totality of the circumstances, including the officer’s training and experience.”

Crowley v. City of Hood River

308 Or. App. 44 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 2020

With that said, I turn to petitioner’s argument that, because the city inserted qualifiers—“portion,” “remain- der,” or “balance”—to the term “park site” several times in explaining its construction of Goal 8 Policy 1, the … For example, adopting a provision to allow a bicycle or skate rental business to be established in Morrison Park would remove the portion of land dedicated to that use from use as park land while promoting the use of the

Delta Property Co. v. Lane County

271 Or. App. 612 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 10, 2015

“ORS 215.213(2) lists uses that ‘may’ be established by a marginal lands county on land zoned for exclusive farm use. … Include a consolidated natural resource map or maps which clearly define the location of sites where conflicting uses are prohibited or limited.

Walter v. Board of Education

301 Or. App. 516 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 2019

Under ORS 326.011, the Board of Education is charged with establish- ing policies for the administration and operation of public elementary and secondary schools in Oregon. … Board of Education establish rules necessary to “ensure compliance with” ORS 659.850(2).

State v. Martine

277 Or. App. 360 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 6, 2016

As we understand it, defendant does not contend that the state was required to establish that the destroyed object was, in fact, the girl’s iPod. … As a matter of syntactic function, the emphasized term, by virtue of “other,” qualifies the preceding term—that is, that to constitute “physical evidence,” those items must be “evidence” Otherwise, it would seem, the use

Oregonians for Sound Economic Policy, Inc. v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

187 Or. App. 621 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 2003

Hall, 186 Or App 113, 119 , 62 P3d 394 (2003) (ORS chapter 125 provides comprehensive framework regarding guardianship proceedings, but remains qualified by requirements of ORS 109.119). … Thus, SAIF reasons, the legislature clearly thought that a request under ORS 656.702 also functions as a request “under this 1973 Act.” OSEP argues that legislative counsel committed no codification error.

State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Orozco

129 Or. App. 148 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 20, 1994

The taking of a blood sample to establish a DNA databank does not violate any of those constitutional protections. … the genetic profile of the donor or otherwise determining the identity of persons or contract with other qualified public or private laboratories to conduct that analysis; "(c) Maintain a criminal identification data base

Cret v. Employment Department

146 Or. App. 139 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 29, 1997

In particular, the Board concluded: “Claimants carry the burden of proof to establish that they re-qualify for benefits pursuant to the provisions of ORS 657.200(3)(b) and (c). … Claimants must establish a prima facie case that they did not participate in, finance or have a direct interest in the outcome of the strike.

Redside Restoration v. Deschutes County

344 Or. App. 383 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 22, 2025

We agree with LUBA that 1000 Friends waived the argument under the principles of waiver established in Beck v. … For that reason, we agree with LUBA that the attorneys’ earlier disagreement on that point, prior to the first appeal to LUBA, could not have had bearing on the matter once it was on remand to the county and thus did not qualify

Redside Restoration v. Deschutes County

344 Or. App. 383 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 22, 2025

We agree with LUBA that 1000 Friends waived the argument under the principles of waiver established in Beck v. … Redside argues that the asserted facts “are clearly relevant to the profitability and suitability factors in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) and (C),” which was the issue on remand.

Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission

248 Or. App. 301 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 23, 2012

“A familiar but nonexclusive test for determining whether discretion has been abused is whether the decision reached was ‘clearly against reason and evidence.’ ” EMC Mortgage Corp. v. … The provisions cited by petitioner do not establish that the plan is internally inconsistent or otherwise undermine the commission’s decision.

State v. Deloretto

221 Or. App. 309 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 23, 2008

Pratt , then — the first Supreme Court case to apply the Johns analysis — establishes a stringent test for similarity. … To “demonstrate” that falsity, the evidence must manifest it “clearly, certainly, or unmistakably.” State v.

State v. Miller

67 Or. App. 637 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 11, 1984

The state argues: "Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's conversations with the Dammasch personnel qualified as privileged material, the emergency circumstances at hand fully justified the overriding of that privilege … "Clearly, the Supreme Court in Brewer v. Williams, 430 US 387 [ 97 S.Ct. 1232 , 51 L.Ed.2d 424 ] (1977), intended the doctrine to apply in cases such as the instant one.

Brown v. Boise Cascade Corp.

150 Or. App. 391 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 8, 1997

Viewed most favorably to plaintiff, the evidence established that plaintiff’s employer, Partridge, and defendant were both participants in the project of “sprucing up” the St. … There may also be (indiscernible), but if you really go back and review the standard, the actual number that applies is clearly five foot-candles in those work areas.

Spivak v. Marriott

213 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 23, 2007

On the city’s appeal, we held that the writ of review statutes clearly contemplate that the court must first issue the writ before it may review a local government’s proceeding. … We further explained that “[t]he writ of review statutes do not * * * serve to abolish established common-law remedies!