Case law

State v. Brock

53 Or. App. 785 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 8, 1981

Dale Morford, a witness for the state under a grant of immunity, testified that he and defendant broke into mobile homes stored on the Barrett lot on several occasions during the December to February period. … I think that amendment would make a better statute, albeit a different one, from what the legislature clearly provided. [5] I would hold that the statute means exactly what it clearly says: it is sufficient to authorize the

Teague v. Palmateer

184 Or. App. 577 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 2002

The United States Constitution requires states to furnish state prisoners with "some clearly defined method by which they may raise claims of denial of federal rights." Young v. … Lane , the Court has not identified a new constitutional rule or proposed new constitutional rule that qualifies under the "watershed" exception. See United States v.

Brooks v. Tube Specialties - TSCO International

300 Or. App. 361 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 2019

As the reason for the denial, insurer stated, “There is insufficient evidence to establish that [claimant] sustained a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of employment.” … That said, Anheluk and Hooper appear to have been decided on their facts—even if those facts are not readily apparent from the short published orders—and do not clearly state a general board policy of awarding an attorney

State v. Ayers

203 Or. App. 683 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 18, 2006

However, in Vawter , the statutory speedy trial issue was more clearly presented and addressed. … unrepresented but knowingly fails to demand trial pursuant to Article 111(a) of the IAD on pending Oregon charges, that inmate will be deemed to have “waived” the protections of ORS 135.747. 11 *701 Two critical caveats qualify

Papadopoulos v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education

14 Or. App. 130 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 27, 1973

The one exception was somewhat lukewarm, but was clearly not based upon knowledge of the man’s published papers, but instead upon general impressions. … However, we note that at least three of these five years were before petitioner came to Oregon State, and that at the administrative hearing the Board stipulated that petitioner was well qualified when hired. ⑤ “(1) The State

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

215 Or. App. 557 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 31, 2007

Under the applicable federal law, the Forest Service was required to establish management plans that create, in effect, zoning maps of permissible uses and that establish basic guidelines by which to determine future use … They acknowledge the qualifier that such use must be the “primary” use of the land or water.

State v. Garcia

320 Or. App. 123 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 8, 2022

Cooper pointed to a photograph from October 2016 in which M looked “clearly malnour- ished,” whereas the other children “all appear to be well- fed.” … The proponent of scien- tific evidence typically must establish that it possesses “suf- ficient indicia of scientific validity.” State v. Southard, 347 Or 127, 133, 218 P3d 104 (2009); see also State v.

State v. Sell

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 13, 2023

Although it is unusual for a jury to send seven notes to the trial court, the jury’s expressions of frustration regarding its deliberations about a complex issue do not establish that the verdict was based on factors external … “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.

Hicks v. Central Point School District

270 Or. App. 532 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 22, 2015

We conclude that the district’s cost analysis, and its determination that that analysis permitted procurement, are subject to review in this action for declaratory relief, under the standard of review established by ORS 279B … unlawful failure to award the contract; “(c) The alleged violation deprived the person of the award of the contract or deprived the person of the opportunity to compete for the award of the contract; “(d) The person was qualified

State ex rel. O'Connor v. Helm

273 Or. App. 717 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 23, 2015

A LOMA establishes a property’s location in relation to the special flood hazard area. … On appeal, O’Connor argues that the circuit court erred in relying on the alternative of LUBA, because an award of attorney fees based on that factor would “clearly deter other land use applicants from pursuing their rights

State v. Priester

325 Or. App. 574 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 2023

However, because reference to a “DV package” at sen- tencing did not establish that all parties had the same understanding of what it included, the shorthand phrase was insufficient to meet the requirements of ORS 137.030 … Though the evidence does not clearly explain the sequence of what hap- pened next, CP again refused to have sex, defendant yelled at her about refusing sex, and defendant held CP by the wrists or arms with both hands and/

City of Eugene v. Comcast of Oregon II, Inc.

263 Or. App. 116 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 21, 2014

The city asserts that Comcast failed to establish anything beyond a *148 short-term clerical error, subsequently corrected. … Clearly the intent behind the Ordinance was not to tax Internet access.” The question, in our view, is not whether the Internet has evolved, but how it has evolved.

Salas-Juarez v. Washburn

334 Or. App. 413 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 14, 2024

Washburn Petitioner argues that statement was “tantamount” to vouching for Russell because it suggested that Young was qualified to determine if someone was telling the truth or lying. We disagree. … On this record, petitioner did not establish deficient performance or prejudice, and the post-conviction court did not err in deny- ing relief on claim 20O.

State v. Gardner-Rolph

345 Or. App. 681 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 17, 2025

The legislature has used such phrases when enacting statutes designed to overlay the guidelines (such as ORS 161.737), and thus, the legislature understands how to clearly craft statutes that are meant to function in tandem … Requires the court to give substan- tial weight to a qualifying mental health evaluation of a juvenile defendant who committed an offense before age 18 * * * includ[ing] an assessment of the person’s degree of

Masood v. Safeco Insurance

275 Or. App. 315 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 2015

The Loss Settlement language makes clear that the dwelling must be repaired or replaced to qualify for the replacement cost coverage.” … “Abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s discretion ‘is exercised to an end not justified and clearly against the evidence and reason.’” State v.

Kinzua Resources v. DEQ

323 Or. App. 37 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 7, 2022

We are thus left with two entities that petitioners repeatedly acknowledged, and the record clearly demonstrated, had legal authority over the site but did not act. … ATR and Frontier actually exercised any authority that they had over the landfill; instead the com- mission relied exclusively on the theory that the entities had the power to do so, which was all that had to be shown to qualify

State v. Henry

78 Or. App. 392 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 9, 1986

Assuming that the vagueness issue has been raised, [2] the question, as I see it, is whether the standard established in Miller v. … Since the prohibited activity cannot be clearly delineated, the appellant argues that the statute must fail as being unconstitutionally vague. We cannot agree. "* * * In Miller v.

Mohiadeen v. Washington County Sheriff's Office

338 Or. App. 29 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 2025

ORS 166.291(1); but see also ORS 166.293(2) (authorizing denial of a license on danger- ousness grounds, even if the person is otherwise qualified under ORS 166.291). … And its con- verse, “has never been convicted of a felony,” was included as a requirement for a concealed handgun license in ORS 166.291, which replaced ORS 166.290 and established the basic contours of the concealed handgun

Mohiadeen v. Washington County Sheriff's Office

338 Or. App. 29 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 2025

ORS 166.291(1); but see also ORS 166.293(2) (authorizing denial of a license on danger- ousness grounds, even if the person is otherwise qualified under ORS 166.291). … And its con- verse, “has never been convicted of a felony,” was included as a requirement for a concealed handgun license in ORS 166.291, which replaced ORS 166.290 and established the basic contours of the concealed handgun

State v. Lavitsky

171 Or. App. 506 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 20, 2000

Clearly, both cannot be correct. For the reasons stated below, I conclude that Henderson is an anomaly and should be overruled. [1] It is inconsistent with several of our subsequent cases. … But we also agree with defendant that the provision qualifies as an erroneous term.