Case law

State v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 20, 2023

On appeal, we con- cluded that the defendant had clearly sought to invoke his right of self-representation and that the trial court erred, because “rather than establishing that defendant’s waiver was knowing and intelligent … Mansor, 363 Or 185, 421 P3d 323 (2018), established new standards for warranted searches of com- puters.

State v. Bray

281 Or. App. 584 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 12, 2016

Indeed, defendant himself proposed early in the proceedings that “the [c]ourt approve a court-qualified forensic expert to do a forensic search.” *616 Third, we conclude that the trial court did not follow the standards and … By that criterion the document at issue here is clearly not a request for discovery. This case was tried, briefed, and argued before we clarified the appropriate procedures and criteria in State v.

McDowell Welding & Pipefitting, Inc. v. United States Gypsum Co.

209 Or. App. 441 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 6, 2006

Examined in isolation, the text of the statute does not clearly reveal the legislature’s intent. The statute is a mix of “mays” — which are typically permissive — and “shalls”— which are typically mandatory. … The Court qualified that rule somewhat by stating that a court does have limited discretion to deny a jury trial when a party would suffer irreparable harm by the trial of the common factual question to a jury.

Oregon AFSCME Council 75 v. OJD - Yamhill County

304 Or. App. 794 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 17, 2020

will be granted or denied; the order in which their employees may use various types of leave; whether their employees may use sick leave to care for certain persons who do not meet the standard definition for qualified … asserts: “At its core, [ERB’s] decision was grounded on a conclusion that the Yamhill County Circuit Court employees have different enough working conditions from all other OJD employees that they form a clearly

State ex rel. Department of Human Services v. Williams

194 Or. App. 57 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 2004

According to the state, the evidence clearly demonstrates that mother is unable to parent both of her children simultaneously. … Significantly, none of mother’s witnesses was treating mother for her mental health problems, nor was any of them qualified to do so.

STATE EX REL. DHS v. Williams

94 P.3d 131 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 2004

According to the state, the evidence clearly demonstrates that mother is unable to parent both of her children simultaneously. … Significantly, none of mother's witnesses was treating mother for her mental health problems, nor was any of them qualified to do so.

Cunningham v. Thompson

186 Or. App. 221 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 5, 2003

argues that he was prejudiced by that failure because *252 Cochran was an “important” witness whose testimony in the penalty phase regarding petitioner’s future dangerousness “undoubtedly influenced” the jury and therefore clearly … According to the state, nothing about the status of Cochran’s license at the relevant time suggested that he was not a qualified expert, and his “self-described efforts to keep dangerous criminals locked up would almost certainly

SAIF Corp. v. Wart

192 Or. App. 505 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 24, 2004

As discussed above, the noncooperation denial at issue in this case clearly was not issued on the ground that the injury was not compensable but on the ground that the injury or condition "otherwise does not give rise to … NOTES [1] Former ORS 656.262(15) provides, in part: "If the director finds that a worker fails to reasonably cooperate with an investigation involving an initial claim to establish a compensable injury * * *, the director

Lee Pacific Properties, Inc. v. Century Pacific Equity Corp.

272 Or. App. 607 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 29, 2015

A condition precedent is “one that must occur before liability arises on the promise that the condition qualifies.” Phoenix-Talent School Dist. # 4 v. … Nevertheless, HUD never clearly defined what submissions it deemed necessary.