Case law

Mantia v. Hanson

190 Or. App. 412 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 13, 2003

We held that a qualified privilege protected the attorney’s actions. … See id. at 419-20. 11 Hiber was our latest — but clearly not our last — word on the cognizability of tort claims against lawyers and litigants based on their statements or conduct in prosecuting legal proceedings.

Carroll v. Cupp

49 Or. App. 773 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 1980

It follows that the trial court’s acceptance of one inference, to the exclusion of the other, was immune from re-examination by this court. 2 Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485 , 443 P2d 621 (1968). … Petitioner’s evidence established only that his sentence, not his plea, was the product of inadequate representation.

Lund v. Arbonne International, Inc.

132 Or. App. 87 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 21, 1994

We conclude that the agreement established an “at will” relationship. We also reject plaintiffs argument that Arbonne’s policy statement changed the “at will” relationship. … Each defendant claimed a qualified privilege. A statement that is otherwise defamatory is privileged if it is uttered under such circumstances that the law grants immunity to the speaker. Wattenburg v.

Eugene Education Ass'n v. Eugene School District 4J

58 Or. App. 140 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 1982

. * * *” *143 The agreement establishes a grievance process. … *144 condition of employment under §2.8 of the agreement, this dispute qualifies as an appropriate subject for arbitration.’

Norgren v. PSRB

344 Or. App. 617 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 5, 2025

is considered to have a qualifying mental disorder. … But a mere “possibility” that cannot be “discounted” is insufficient to establish “danger” based on a mental disorder that is in remission.

State v. Mays

269 Or. App. 599 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 18, 2015

An “inference need not inevitably follow from the established facts; rather, if the established facts support multiple reasonable inferences, the jury may decide which inference to draw.” State v. … Williams [’s] conduct at the first trial,” noting that it “recall [ed]” that conduct “very clearly.”

California Table Grape Commission v. Health Division

109 Or. App. 226 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 1991

ORS 616.073(3)(a) clearly prohibits the use of sulfites by restaurants. The serving of food previously treated with sulfites by food processors or shippers is not the use of sulfites. … Although ORS 616.077(1) 2 directs the Division to adopt rules necessary to implement the policy established in ORS 616.073, ORS 616.077(2) specifically and clearly exempts licensed food processors from the prohibition against

Oregon Entertainment Corp. v. City of Beaverton

172 Or. App. 361 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 7, 2001

As will be explained, [the] Council’s decision is based on an evaluation of the existing use, similar uses and other area establishments.” … of criterion 3 as being concerned with “potential for criminal activity” 3 and its related finding about the increased problems with nighttime crime prevention in proximity to the Fantasy Video location, the evidence is clearly

Kennedy v. Eden Advanced Pest Technologies

222 Or. App. 431 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 1, 2008

Rea prescribed dietary restrictions, injection therapy, nutrient therapy, heat therapy, massage and exercise therapy, and immune therapy. … Again, those kinds of conflicts between qualified experts go to the weight to be given to plaintiffs evidence and not its admissibility.

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians v. Employment Department

165 Or. App. 65 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 12, 2000

Coquille Indian Tribe, 327 Or 318, 321 , 963 P2d 638 (1998) (Indian tribes may expressly waive their sovereign immunity). … Subsection (4) established that state and local government employing units are “employers.”

State v. Ramirez

312 Or. App. 117 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 3, 2021

Two, the state can establish, under ORS 813.010(1)(b) or (c), that the driver was, at the time of driving, “under the influence” of one or more intoxicants. … The court’s reference to RCW 46.61.5249 was in passing and clearly intended only as a contrasting example of an offense that, unlike the offense for which the defendant had previously been convicted, did involve alco- hol

Joseph v. Utah Home Fire Insurance

106 Or. App. 505 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 10, 1991

To me, these facts very clearly spell out a “family” situation, and Tanisha is a “member” of that family. … Clearly, the non-formalized family is a reality today. It is as close as the family next door.

State v. Wilson

20 Or. App. 553 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 10, 1975

This exception is limited to evidence only of the making of the complaint, however, and does not immunize testimony relating the details of any such declaration. State v. … established rule that the witness cannot state the identity of the alleged assailant.

Honstein v. Metro West Ambulance Service, Inc.

193 Or. App. 457 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 2004

Defendant had no burden to establish -undue hardship unless plaintiff could establish a reasonable accommodation. … The court’s instruction correctly, clearly, and concisely instructed the jury as to what a reasonable accommodation was. The jury decided that plaintiff never established the existence of one.

State v. Page

197 Or. App. 72 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 12, 2005

As a prehminary matter, the state maintained at oral argument that the “plain error” rule is superseded or qualified by the doctrine of waiver. … As the United States Supreme Court has stated, “There is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights, and for a waiver to be effective, it must be clearly established that there is an intentional relinquishment

Phelan v. Environmental Quality Commission

141 Or. App. 321 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 29, 1996

We conclude that the text and context of ORS 468.150 clearly require plaintiff to meet the conditions and limitations of ORS 468.155 to ORS 468.190. We need not consider legislative history. … ORS 468.190 establishes the factors to use in determining the portion of actual cost allocated to pollution control. The 1975 legislation actually amended former ORS 468.290.

Larisa's Home Care, LLC v. Nichols-Shields

297 Or. App. 219 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 24, 2019

For Medicaid-qualified patients, the rates charged by plaintiff were set by DHS. Id . … Defendant also points to plaintiff's contract with DHS, which includes provisions that reflect the administrative rule's requirements. 5 Defendant *616 asserts that "the *224 evidence and authority provided to the trial court clearly

Walters v. PSRB

341 Or. App. 41 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 4, 2025

ORS 161.351(1); ORS 161.346(1)(a);.2 1 Our conclusion that the PSRB failed to establish that petitioner has a quali- fying mental disorder obviates the need to address petitioner’s second assignment of error, arguing … Based on my review of the more recent record those issues that were present at the time have—have clearly resolved and adjust- ment disorder is not a cyclic disorder.

Thunderbird Mobile Club, LLC v. City of Wilsonville

234 Or. App. 457 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 24, 2010

Plaintiff also alleged: “The adoption and threatened enforcement of the Ordinancefs] by the City of Wilsonville acting under color of law and ordinance, deprives the Plaintiff of its rights, privileges and immunities secured … A companion amendment amended Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution that “reserved” the initiative and referendum powers of voters for state laws to “further reserve[ ] to the qualified voters of each municipality

Schlichting v. Bergstrom

13 Or. App. 562 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 27, 1973

Cooper, 256 Or 485 , 475 P2d 78 , 45 ALR3d 857 (1970), defendants contend they are immune from suit because the discharge decision plaintiff challenges was a discretionary act. This is frivolous. … Rather, it appears that the court has used the term “arbitrary” as a shorthand way of expressing violation of clearly established substantive constitutional rights. The court’s illustrations so indicate.