Case law

Butterfield v. State of Oregon

163 Or. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 1999

Clearly, Oregon courts when construing a statute passed by the Oregon Legislature are not bound by lower federal court characterizations regarding the state statutes. … or section 207 [establishing maximum hours and overtime compensation requirements!

Clifford v. City of Clatskanie

204 Or. App. 566 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 15, 2006

Applying that standard, we concluded that uncontroverted evidence established that the officer had, in fact, been acting pursuant to his “official duty or authority” in communicating the defamatory material to other officers … This statement identifies three criteria that a government function or duty must meet in order to qualify for discretionary immunity.

Roberts v. Thies

70 Or. App. 256 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 10, 1984

Oregon cases clearly distinguish the acts of a city council which are subject to the referendum from those which are not. "* * * The only acts of the council that are subject to the referendum, by Section 1[(5)], Article … of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities

Oregon State Bar v. Ortiz

77 Or. App. 532 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 5, 1986

defendant argues that the injunction was improperly granted, because (1) the federal government has preempted the state’s ability to regulate the practice of law in the immigration area; and (2) the state has failed to establish … The question is whether defendant is immune from state regulation, even though he does not fit within the federal exceptions to the attorney requirement. An almost identical question has arisen in patent law cases.

Ritchie v. Board of Parole

37 Or. App. 385 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 1978

Perry did not involve a system like that established by ORS 144.343 in which appointed counsel is guaranteed in all cases where counsel would be likely to be of assistance. … Art I, § 20 of the Oregon Constitution: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

Sundermier v. State ex rel. Public Employees Retirement System

269 Or. App. 586 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 11, 2015

In other words, HB 3349 established a mechanism by which the affected public employees would receive an additional benefit to remedy the breach of contract described in Hughes . … First, we apply the familiar framework for statutory interpretation established in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), and subsequently modified by State v.

Johnson v. SAIF Corp.

202 Or. App. 264 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 19, 2005

Employers were *282 given the option of either contributing to the IAF or qualifying as a “direct responsibility employer,” that is, demonstrating financial ability to provide coverage by either posting a bond or obtaining … “This bill would establish SAIF as a public corporation under the direction of a five-member Board of Directors.

Schmidt v. Intel Corp.

199 Or. App. 618 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 2005

Intel contends that it established that Schmidt was its subject worker for purposes of the workers’ compensation law and, thus, workers’ compensation is plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy. 2 We reverse and remand. … as a ‘self-insured employer.’ * * * [T]he statute immunizes employers maintaining such assurance from tort claims arising from injury to their subject workers.”

May Trucking Co. v. Employment Department

251 Or. App. 555 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 8, 2012

This section does not apply where no employment relationship exists because the worker is an independent contractor or operating an independently established business.” … concerning whether claimant was qualified for benefits.

Hoekstre v. STATE EX REL. DLCD

249 Or. App. 626 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 9, 2012

As described by the Supreme Court, this case concerns the “express pathway,” which is set out in section 6 of Measure 49. 2 Pursuant to section 6(1), if a claimant establishes certain qualifying prerequisites, the claimant … Petitioner sought judicial review of DLCD’s order. 4 On review, the parties’ contentions essentially reduced to a single legal issue — that is, whether section 6(3) of Measure 49 allows a qualified claimant to establish “

State v. Weishar

78 Or. App. 468 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 9, 1986

Defendant argues that ORS 133.515(1) required the police to obtain the services of a qualified interpreter to provide him with a reasonable opportunity to understand his rights. … There does not appear to be any dispute regarding that proposition and, in fact, the law clearly supports the state’s position.

Bruner v. Josephine County

240 Or. App. 276 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

See Friends of Yamhill County, 237 Or.App. at 177-78 , 238 P.3d 1016 (explaining the relevant factors used to establish a "common law vested right" under section 5(3) of Measure 49). … Whether zoning permissions have ripened to a degree sufficient to immunize the use from regulatory controls is tested by the "common law vested right" doctrine referenced in section 5(3) of Measure 49.

State v. Perry

165 Or. App. 342 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 9, 2000

If the legislature’s intent is not clearly expressed in the text and context of the statute, then we may also consider its legislative history. Id. … The state contends that defendant, as a nonowner, simply does not qualify for the exception.

Young v. Hermiston Good Samaritan

223 Or. App. 99 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 2008

that, in fact, what claimant presented qualified as such a condition. … ORS 656.273(8) (2008) now provides that a worker seeking to establish an aggravation of an injury or disease for which permanent disability has been awarded “must establish that the worsening is more than waxing and waning

State ex rel. Children's Services Division v. Campbell

122 Or. App. 371 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 18, 1993

We do not condone courts’ failing to rule on jurisdictional petitions before terminating parental rights. 2 However, in this case, it is clearly established that the court assumed jurisdiction of the child when it granted … Tucker, supra, we clarified and distinguished our holding in Charles : “[W]hen *375 cultural bias is clearly not implicated, the necessary proof may be provided by expert witnesses who do not possess special knowledge of

Stafford v. Garrett

46 Or. App. 781 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 23, 1980

The trial court tried the case without a jury and found that the plaintiff did not establish that the defendants were negligent by a preponderance of the evidence. We affirm. … Plaintiff says that there is no question but that the cause of action based on the Plantz telephone conversation involved qualified, and not absolute, privilege.

Moser v. Hampton

67 Or. App. 716 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 18, 1984

The court held that the doctrine of spousal immunity does not prevent a claim for an intentional tort. The exception to spousal immunity was clearly limited to intentional torts. … Restatement (Second) Torts § 895F (1979), states: "(1) A husband or wife is not immune from tort liability to the other solely by reason of that relationship. "(2) Repudiation of general tort immunity does not establish liability

Grisby v. Progressive Preferred Insurance

207 Or. App. 592 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 6, 2006

as insured costs, plaintiff will receive a greater “amount of ben efits” — i.e., more money — than he would receive if the expenses do not qualify. … Because I conclude that Progressive’s statements to plaintiff and its posture in litigation left unresolved issues beyond the amount of benefits, I would hold that Progressive cannot avail itself of the immunity from attorney

Lincoln Loan Co. v. City of Portland

158 Or. App. 574 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 24, 1999

The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the individual defendants on the section 1983 claims on the ground of qualified immunity and for City on Lincoln’s procedural due process claim. … immunity.

Matter of City of Prineville's Decision

49 Or. App. 385 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 24, 1980

and concluded "* * * that although the county court’s action may eventually turn on a discretionary choice, the statutory design sufficiently channels discretion by factfinding procedures and broadly stated criteria to qualify … For example, the writ does not allege— and petitioners do not contend — that the city used any immunity it might have from its zoning ordinance to change the authorized uses of the property before transferring it to the buyer