Case law

State v. Borowski

231 Or. App. 511 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 28, 2009

They argue that the statute “grant[s]” an “immunity[y]” (from prosecution) to one “class of citizens” (those who are involved in a labor dispute, broadly defined), but that the immunity does “not equally belong to all citizens … To justify differential treatment, in other words, the city would have needed to establish that labor picketing was “clearly more disruptive”; in the absence of that showing, the distinction between labor and nonlabor picketing

State v. Babson

249 Or. App. 278 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 11, 2012

pursuant to ORS 173.710: “The Legislative Administration Committee hereby is established as a joint committee of the Legislative Assembly.” … “Cases interpreting Article I, section 8, establish that a person cannot immunize herself or himself from the application of speech-neutral laws by accompanying otherwise illegal conduct with expressive activity.

Cardenas v. Farmers Insurance

230 Or. App. 403 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 19, 2009

The question before us on appeal is whether a dispute concerning the enforceability of a release is an issue that relates only to “damages”; if so, then defendant qualifies for the “safe harbor” immunity from attorney fees … established by ORS 742.061(3), set out below.

Employment Division v. Peddicord

125 Or. App. 113 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 1993

If those earnings are not considered, claimant does not satisfy the $1,000 minimum necessary to qualify for benefits. … ORS 657.030(1) clearly provides that there is “employment” for purposes of the unemployment compensation law only if services are performed for an “employer,” as that term is defined in ORS 657.025(1).

Department of Human Services v. K. C. J.

228 Or. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 29, 2009

According to DHS, the testimony by the other expert witnesses clearly supports the trial court’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt. … The second sentence of ORS 419B.365(4), read without the phrase beginning with “including” that is set off by two commas, clearly states that, despite the clear and convincing standard of proof specified in that statute’s

Garrett v. Olsen

71 Or. App. 93 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 21, 1984

rule of the law of torts that a teacher is immune from liability for physical punishment, reasonable in degree, administered to a pupil. … However, the court qualified its holding: “This is not equivalent to an openended measure of general damages for ‘pain and suffering’ drawn from tort law.

State v. J. B.

339 Or. App. 354 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 2, 2025

Here, multiple witnesses agreed that appellant has neurocognitive disorder, although its severity had not yet been established. … In their conver- sation, appellant was clearly able to “identify the neglect in the home,” but it was unclear that she understood the related risks.

State v. J. B.

339 Or. App. 354 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 2, 2025

Here, multiple witnesses agreed that appellant has neurocognitive disorder, although its severity had not yet been established. … In their conver- sation, appellant was clearly able to “identify the neglect in the home,” but it was unclear that she understood the related risks.

Hutcheson v. City of Keizer

169 Or. App. 510 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2000

The City also offered the testimony of Ted Cassidy, an engineer with extensive experience with FIRM flood plain designations, who testified that the 1985 FIRM map clearly indicated that the area of the Labish Ditch in question … Nothing in the record establishes the actual existence of any notes from any of the meetings in question, much less that the City had possession of, or ready access to, any such notes.

State v. Najibi

150 Or. App. 194 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 24, 1997

It is error for the trial judge *204 to exclude evidence that establishes sufficient facts from which bias or interest of a witness may be inferred. State v. … Defense counsel recognized that a grant of immunity would solve the conflict. 9 However, the immunity statutes, ORS 136.617 and ORS 136.619, allow the state, not a defendant, to move for an order compelling a witness to testify

Kramer v. City of Lake Oswego

285 Or. App. 181 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 3, 2017

Article I, section 20, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, provides, “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 … See Crocker and Crocker, 332 Or 42, 54 , 22 P3d 759 (2001) (“The equal privileges and immunities clause scrutinizes benefits in the form of privileges and immunities given to a particular class [.] ”).

Van Gordon, Etc. v. Portland Gen. Elec.

59 Or. App. 740 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 10, 1982

Clatsop County, 46 Or App 129 , 610 P2d 1248 (1980), we said: “ORS 105.665 clearly relieves defendant of any liability for mere negligent behavior. … Viewed most favorably to plaintiff, the evidence established several facts.

Carrigg v. Fackrell

44 Or. App. 413 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 11, 1980

The contract does not define "qualified purchasers,” and it establishes no mechanism for determining what a "qualified purchaser” is. … Clearly, the relationship of the original purchasers and the corporation is not comparable to the original purchasers’ *417 relationship with General Motors.

Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry

328 Or. App. 309 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2023

We further reject plaintiff’s argument regarding the privileges and immunities clause. … way of necessity is established.”

Burt v. Blumenauer

65 Or. App. 399 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 9, 1983

The grant application requested $55,573 of federal funds, to be matched by $38,573 from the county, to establish a “Fluoridation Public Information Project.” … That was before the anti-fluoridation measure qualified for the ballot but at a time when the political committee supporting the initiative had already submitted 21,000 signatures, 6,000 more than necessary to qualify, to

State v. Ohotto

261 Or. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 12, 2014

We also conclude that the deputy was not qualified to testify as an expert in alcohol absorption and elimination rates. 5 Oregon’s evidence code requires that scientific evidence must be proffered by “a witness qualified … Id. *77 To prove the offense, the state needed to establish that defendant drove while he was intoxicated.

City of Eugene v. Lincoln

183 Or. App. 36 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 24, 2002

Thus, some cases qualify for appeal from municipal court to appellate courts only because they are constitutional, namely, constitutional cases involving small penalties or other characteristics that would normally preclude … Cases interpreting Article I, section 8, establish that a person cannot immunize herself or himself from the application of speech-neutral laws by accompanying otherwise illegal conduct with expressive activity.

State v. Smith

246 Or. App. 204 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 26, 2011

As we explained, to prevail on his claim, the defendant “ha[d] the burden of establishing the lack of criteria or, if there are criteria, the lack of consistent enforcement.” Id. at 588. … Here, the district attorney’s practice qualifies as a policy that governs charging decisions. In order to prevail, defendant had the burden of demonstrating a “lack of consistent enforcement.” Id.

Valerio v. Valerio

224 Or. App. 265 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 3, 2008

We need not determine whether that incident sufficed, however, because a minimum of two qualifying contacts is required, and the January 2007 incident at the coffee shop clearly does not qualify. … In short, petitioner failed to establish the requisites for issuance of an SPO. The trial court erred in reaching a contrary conclusion. Reversed.

Oatney v. Premo

275 Or. App. 185 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 2015

be self-contained claims unrelated to the evidence presented at trial — for example, a claim that counsel should have sought suppression of evidence derived from petitioner’s statement at a release hearing — others are clearly … Dickerson, 356 Or 822, 829 , 345 P3d 447 (2015) (in interpreting statutes, courts give legal terms “their established legal meanings”).