Case law

State v. Milstead

57 Or. App. 658 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 1982

The possibility that she was not intoxicated is clearly a subject on which she may produce evidence to rebut the state's case. … Before a fact that is the result of scientific testing is admissible, it must be established that correct testing procedures were followed.

Boger v. Norris & Stevens, Inc.

109 Or. App. 90 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 2, 1991

The trial court correctly recognized the witnesses as qualified experts. We reject defendants’ first three assignments. … The evidence clearly and convincingly supported the award of punitive damages. See Joachim v. Crater Lake Lodge, 48 Or App 379 , 617 P2d 632 , rev den 290 Or 211 (1980).

State v. Schoen

350 Or. App. 37 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 28, 2026

Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013) (to establish plain error, a defendant must demonstrate, among other things, that the error was “obvious”). … Cite as 350 Or App 37 (2026) 43 Because any error is not obvious, we conclude that defen- dant’s claims of error do not qualify for plain error review.

State v. Bojorcas

14 Or. App. 538 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 4, 1973

In order to accomplish this end, a procedure was established by which each member of the tribe was given an opportunity to elect to withdraw from the tribe and have his interest in tribal property converted into money and … The tribe clearly retains that right. But when the issue becomes who shall be beneficiaries of federal treaties, Congress has the ultimate authority to determine tribal membership. See F.

Saunders v. State Accident Insurance Fund

40 Or. App. 169 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 14, 1979

He also claims that his educational background, a bachelor’s degree in pre-med and chemistry, will not qualify him for employment as a biologist, biochemist, or as a chemist working as a quality control manager, his previous … Clearly, the agency is of the opinion claimant has sufficient education, skills and experience to obtain other employment without further education or training.

City of Salem v. Lawrow

233 Or. App. 32 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 2009

Well-settled case law establishes a set of rules for analyzing government enactments or actions that might violate Article I, section 8: “In State v. … Robertson, [ 293 Or 402 , 649 P2d 569 (1982),] this court established a framework for evaluating whether a law violates Article I, section 8.

Mason v. Griffin-Valade

331 Or. App. 599 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 27, 2024

The new section 6 would also establish a panel to review applicants for the commission, which would iden- tify a pool of qualified candidates, of which a third would be members of the largest political party, a third would … It would establish quorum and voting rules. It would establish specific criteria for the drawing of legislative districts.

State v. Lissy

85 Or. App. 484 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 27, 1987

After the murder, LaPlante agreed to help the police in return for immunity from prosecution. She made two telephone calls to defendant, which the police recorded with her consent. … On the other hand, the same words spoken under different circumstances, e.g., to an acquaintance, would have no difficulty in qualifying.”

State v. Blossom

88 Or. App. 75 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 21, 1987

Such a requirement would nullify the intent and effect of the RICO prohibitions. * * * “Congress clearly intended the Act to provide for new penal prohibitions and enhanced sanctions. … A conviction under RICO would, in fact, grant immunity for the offenses charged in the ‘pattern of racketeering.’ ” 5 In the light of our holding, defendant’s argument that the sentence for attempted theft should run concurrently

Brown v. Roach

249 Or. App. 579 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 2, 2012

We conclude that the record establishes, at most, one qualifying contact within the meaning of ORS 30.866. Therefore, we reverse. … “The issuance of an SPO is a serious matter, and the statutory requirements imposed by the legislature are clearly designed to ensure that such orders are imposed only when the need for such an order is clearly established

NewSun Energy, LLC v. PUC

346 Or. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 22, 2026

: “(a) Establish safety and operating requirements nec- essary to adequately protect all systems, facilities and equipment of the electric utility and qualifying facility; “(b) Be consistent with applicable … ORS 758.535(2) (“The terms and conditions for the purchase of energy or energy capacity from a qualifying facility shall: (a) Be established by rule by the commission if the purchase is by a public utility[.]”).

Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County

285 Or. App. 267 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 3, 2017

qualify as such lodgings? … The lock-off rooms are not part of an establishment that provides services or hospitality associated with hotels or motels.

Kuhn ex rel. Kuhn v. Department of Human Services

283 Or. App. 695 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 15, 2017

Although petitioner expressed her dissatisfaction with the annual plan below, she did not clearly raise, and the ALJ did not address, the issue that she now raises. … as a matter of law that the trips qualify as social benefits.

State v. St. Hilaire

97 Or. App. 108 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 1989

He was clearly qualified to do that. Moreover, because most of the children whom he had interviewed were known to have been abused, there was a low potential for error in his observations. … The court qualified the admissibility of expert testimony on the “sex abuse syndrome” in Milbradt .

Summerfield v. Or. Liquor Control Comm'n

294 Or. App. 415 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 17, 2018

The court stated, "I think her testimony is clearly inadmissible and I'm not going to allow it." *417 Plaintiff presented, as part of his case, the testimony of his treating psychologist concerning detrimental effects that … OLCC argues, among other things, that the trial court correctly excluded Curry-Stevens's testimony because plaintiff failed to establish its scientific validity under Brown and O'Key .

STATE EX REL. CSD 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 cultural bias is clearly not implicated, the necessary proof may be provided by expert witnesses who do not possess special knowledge of Indian

Leong's, Inc. v. Oregon State Lottery Commission

142 Or. App. 460 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 31, 1996

The basis of the denial was explained as follows: “[We have] determined that you do not qualify as a Video Lottery retailer under OAR 177-100-060 and OAR 177-040-010 for the following reason(s): “A conviction for any gambling … ‘control persons’ of those establishments still have gambling convictions on their records, Petitioners are being treated unfairly by Respondents’ denial.

Smith v. Di Marco

207 Or. App. 558 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 6, 2006

The second incident clearly qualifies. It involves not just hostile speech, but physical confrontation. Respondent took swings at petitioner and reached in the door to take C away. … The third incident also clearly qualifies. Again, it involved both hostile, threatening language as well as physical confrontation.

Harper v. Washburn

308 Or. App. 244 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 2020

As such, OEC 613 might be conceptualized as distinct from the impeachment sections explicitly referencing credibility, although conceptually it is clearly related. … Washburn Despite the broad type of impeachment evidence permissible, it is not readily apparent that the evidence here qualifies.

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County

276 Or. App. 282 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 2016

Clearly, it is the focal event that is the primary use, and any associated activities (eating, dancing, lawn games, etc.) are, at best, incidental to the focal event. … The answer in both cases is clearly no. The filming in Smalley, if it occurs, would occur only if there is a wedding on the property.