Case law

Krushwitz v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oregon, Inc.

129 Or. App. 621 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 24, 1994

Defendant argued to the trial court that ORS 656.018 immunizes it for two reasons. … Clearly, those allegations show the necessary causal connection between work and the injury. They also indicate on their face that the necessary time, place and circumstances are present.

World Literature Crusade v. Insurance Division

42 Or. App. 683 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 22, 1979

It is an established principle of construction that no word in a statute is to be deemed redundant or useless. … Subsection (5)(g) establishes the qualifications for religious organizations.

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.

Afzal v. Perb

239 Or. App. 284 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 1, 2010

unable to perform any work for which qualified * * *." … In response, PERB argues that claimant's burden of proof clearly required him to establish that he is incapable of performing any work for which he is otherwise qualified and that, because neither Bruce Bell nor Lynne Bell

State v. Schutte

146 Or. App. 97 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 29, 1997

“Upon leaving the establishment, we were both attacked by some people from behind. I was able to get up and help [defendant], as he was on the ground and was in a lot of pain. … Defendant argues that the court erred in finding that the corroborating circumstances were insufficient to *102 establish the trustworthiness of Bollinger’s statement.

Greenfield v. Ollikala

85 Or. App. 357 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 6, 1987

A qualified privilege ordinarily must be raised as an affirmative defense. … However, the fact that the defamatory matter was contained in a letter making a claim on a bond does not, in and of itself, establish the privilege as a matter of law.

Citizens for Responsibility v. Lane County

207 Or. App. 500 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2006

Accordingly, the county must demonstrate a practical effect on its interests in order to establish standing to bring this appeal. … As explained, the statute clearly contemplates that a qualifying facility will be disqualified when it is ‘no longer used as a firearms training facility.’

McIntyre v. Crouch

98 Or. App. 462 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 13, 1989

To qualify under the filiation statute as an initiating party and be declared a father, see ORS 109.125(e) and ORS 109.155, petitioner must show that ORS 109.239 does not bar him. … Again, ORS 109.239 contains no qualifying language. 2 It is unambiguous. By its terms, it bars petitioner. We cannot rewrite the act.

Charmley v. Lewis

77 Or. App. 112 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 1985

Five other witnesses’ testimony was offered to establish plaintiffs habit. … Merely because conduct is unusual or distinctive does not establish that it is a habit. On the other hand, many behaviors that would seem clearly to be habits are not distinctive.

Schutz v. La Costita III, Inc.

256 Or. App. 573 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 2013

“REPRESENTATIVE SHETTERLY: And clearly it’s not, because the greater risk is they’re going to go out and hurt somebody else, in which case then the bar owner is still liable. … In that case, the court held that, because the defendant would have been immune from an action at common law in 1857 due to sovereign immunity, a legislative limit on liability did not violate Article I, section 10.

Hoskinson v. Public Employes Retirement Board

23 Or. App. 328 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 10, 1975

Petitioner argues the medical evidence favorable to him “clearly outweighs” the contrary medical evidence. … His brief, however, answers, his own contention, stating: “It is well established that the findings of fact of an administrative agency will not be disturbed by a court if there is any substantial evidence to support those

State v. Carr

215 Or. App. 306 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 3, 2007

Those signs are not clearly readable from the area near the sidewalk. … In evaluating that challenge, *313 we noted both that a person cannot immunize himself or herself from the application of a speech-neutral law by enmeshing otherwise illegal conduct with expressive activity and that government

Barrett v. Williams

247 Or. App. 309 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 21, 2011

The right was definitively established in Bounds v. … Barrett’s protected attorney-client privilege deprived him of equal privileges and immunities as guaranteed by Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution and Equal Protection of the Laws under the Fourteenth Amendment

Free Oregon, Inc. v. Oregon Health Authority

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 13, 2023

- sion from working in healthcare or school settings, settings with vulnerable populations—are ones that are on their face aimed at preserving public health, so as to qualify as “sanitary” requirements, as the legislature … Therefore, [p]laintiff’s case falls under the second clause of [ORS 433.416(3)],” [which states,] “ ‘A worker shall not be required as a condition of work to be immunized under this section, unless such immunization

State Ex Rel. Schrunk v. Metz

125 Or. App. 405 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 22, 1993

However, there is no bright line rule that establishes when due process is or is not satisfied. … in state court, because the application of the state immunity law would thwart the congressional remedy * * Felder v.

Christensen v. Carter

261 Or. App. 133 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 2014

two qualifying contacts for each respondent. … As for Bosket, we agree with the trial court that petitioner failed to establish two qualifying contacts. However, as for Carter, we conclude that there were sufficient contacts to support the issuance of an SPO.

Free Oregon, Inc. v. Oregon Health Authority

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 13, 2023

- sion from working in healthcare or school settings, settings with vulnerable populations—are ones that are on their face aimed at preserving public health, so as to qualify as “sanitary” requirements, as the legislature … Therefore, [p]laintiff’s case falls under the second clause of [ORS 433.416(3)],” [which states,] “ ‘A worker shall not be required as a condition of work to be immunized under this section, unless such immunization

Ragaway v. City of Portland

315 Or. App. 647 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 17, 2021

It provides: “108.1 Board of appeals established. … City of Portland adopted a policy requiring taxi drivers to meet certain crite- ria before obtaining a license, one of its employees licenses a taxi driver who does not qualify, and as a result that driver causes harm. *

Afzal v. Public Employees Retirement Board

239 Or. App. 284 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 1, 2010

that he was unable to perform “any work for which qualified.” … In response, PERB argues that claimant’s burden of proof clearly required him to establish that he is incapable of performing any work for which he is otherwise qualified and that, because neither Bruce Bell nor Lynne Bell

York v. Morgan

16 Or. App. 76 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 1973

We there held that a community college student did not establish eligibility when he did not unequivocally testify that he was ready to drop school if necessary in order to accept any suitable work. … When claimant stated she would not accept work except on the afternoon shift, she clearly made herself unavailable for work of the character that she was qualified to perform. * * #” Affirmed.