Case law

State v. Bainbridge

230 Or. App. 500 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 2, 2009

Before the trial court, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of the offense. … The state also argues that, “[b]ecause some of the highway workers present in the highway work zone qualified as pedestrians, and because the record supports an inference that they controlled access to the zone, that area

Petersen v. Employment Department

135 Or. App. 344 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 28, 1995

That structure permits two plausible constructions: either subsection (1)(c) qualifies only subsection (1)(b) or it qualifies both subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b). … If the legislature intended that the latter control the former, it clearly knew how to express that intent; it did not do so. Accord Oregon Business Planning Council v.

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. City of West Linn

192 Or. App. 567 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 24, 2004

of religion (referred to in this section as the ‘Establishment Clause’). *581 Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation … Immunity from Land Use Regulations In its fourth assignment of error, the city argues that LUBA erred in interpreting and applying RLUIPA so as to provide religious entities with “immunity” from land use regulations, that

State v. Webster

280 Or. App. 217 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 10, 2016

Rather, defendant argues that the “presumptive” term is the term established by the sentencing guidelines grid block that corresponds to his conviction. … Second, the authority that defendant cites does not support that the trial court’s ruling was clearly erroneous. Most notably, the relevance of Hicks to defendant’s appeal is debatable at best.

State v. Singleton

317 Or. App. 49 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 12, 2022

When a defendant has established that he is eligible to have his conviction set aside, the court may deny such a motion if the court determines that the “circumstances and behavior of the applicant” since the arrest and conviction … Defendant argues that the plain language of ORS 137.225 “clearly envisions an evidentiary hearing” and points to provisions in which a hearing is mentioned.

Mason v. Griffin-Valade

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.

Smith v. City of Portland

108 Or. App. 215 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 24, 1991

The facility will not provide “care,” and it qualifies as an ICF. Before LUBA, petitioner also contended that the city’s findings did not adequately explain the basis for its decision, as required by ORS 227.173(2). … LUBA agreed but held that the “evidence ‘clearly supports’ a determination that the proposed shelter will not provide ‘care * * * as defined in [PCC] 33.12.615.’ ” Therefore, LUBA affirmed the decision pursuant to ORS 197.835

State Ex Rel. Eckles v. Livermore

72 Or. App. 650 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 20, 1985

should be organized under common regulations which would permit any group of persons wishing to do so to effect incorporation without special application or special favor, and would exclude sectional distinctions and local immunities … The Port of Portland, supra, establishing and creating the Port of Columbia. In Farrell v.

State v. Stalder

205 Or. App. 126 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 19, 2006

The state further responds that the sentence is not indeterminate because it clearly states that defendant must serve for a specific number of months, namely, 64. … Instead, it merely added the qualifier that the total sentence cannot exceed 60 months. That, however, does not satisfy OAR 213-005-0002(4). Nor does the additional qualifier cure the problem.

Smith v. Dept. of Corrections

301 Or. App. 299 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 11, 2019

Petitioner is obligated to “allege such facts as are necessary to establish that the court has jurisdiction to act.” State ex rel Sweere v. Crookham, 289 Or 3, 7, 609 P2d 361 (1980). … He is required to, “at a minimum, put forth a non- conclusory explanation or argument as to why the writing in question qualifies as a rule as defined in ORS 183.310(9).” Smith v.

State v. Etzel

310 Or. App. 761 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 2021

On review, the Supreme Court concluded that the forensic interviewer’s testimony qualified as scientific evi- dence. Id. at 301. … If anything, the error was more clearly not harmless in this case than in Plueard, because, in this case, there was extensive evidence of defendant engaging in conduct that fit the witness’s description of potential “grooming

Wausau Insurance v. Morris

103 Or. App. 270 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 5, 1990

OAR 438-12-035 provides that temporary total disability benefits awarded by the Board on its own motion “shall continue to be paid under the relevant statutory provisions and regulations established by the Director for all … Claimant is entitled to benefits for temporary total disability only if he qualifies for those benefits under the relevant statutory provisions.

Randall v. Ocean View Construction Co.

196 Or. App. 153 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 10, 2004

. *158 The statute then states that the CCB is required to “establish two classes of independent contractor licenses,” one for an “exempt class” of licensees and one for a “nonexempt class.” ORS 701.035(2). … The answer appears clearly to be no. As we have noted, ORS 701.055 requires a license when a person undertakes, or offers to undertake, or submits a bid to do work “as a contractor.”

State v. Riddle

155 Or. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 26, 1998

Myers clearly was a “representative of the lawyer,” as he was retained to help defense counsel in the planning and conduct of litigation. … against invading the privacy of an attorney’s course of preparation is so well recognized and so essential to an orderly working of our system of legal procedure that a burden rests on the one who would invade that privacy to establish

State v. Anthony

234 Or. App. 659 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 14, 2010

establish that the statement is trustworthy. … Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 614 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993) (“The legislature knows how to include qualifying language in a statute when it wants to do so.”).

Alexander Loop, LLC v. City of Eugene

297 Or. App. 775 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 30, 2019

The bridge improvements qualified for transportation SDC credits. … Oregon courts analyze claims for unjust enrichment under the methodology established by Larisa's Home Care, LLC v.

State v. Oregon Public Employes Union

91 Or. App. 124 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 11, 1988

MacLaren has established bona fide occupational requirements which preclude women from certain nighttime and other shifts. … However, state’s argument ignores the statutory language, which clearly recognizes a different scheme of values — employe representation and collective bargaining — as pre-eminent in connection with the promotion, transfer

State v. Johansen

125 Or. App. 365 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 22, 1993

An extended period of *374 commitment pursuant to ORS 426.301 to ORS 426.307 clearly infringes on this liberty interest. … ORS 426.110(1) requires that the court appoint at least one qualified examiner and, if requested, one additional examiner.

Alto v. City of Cannon Beach

247 Or. App. 641 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 25, 2012

On respondents’ motion to dismiss, 4 LUBA concluded that the “challenged decision is *646 clearly a Measure 49 vested rights determination” and that “challenges to such vested rights determinations are not subject to LUBA … Petitioners remonstrated that they established statutory standing.

Peterson v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission

21 Or. App. 420 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 19, 1975

However, the change shall not take effect unless it is also approved by the qualified voters if within 45 days after the date of the order: “(a) Written objections to the change signed by not less than 20 percent of the qualified … established that annexation was the clear will of the property owners in the affected territory.