Case law

Merrick v. Board of Higher Education

116 Or. App. 258 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 12, 1992

A statute that establishes a content-based restriction on the free expression rights of public employees cannot be *265 sustained under section 8. … Because we hold the statute unconstitutional under Article I, section 8, we need not address the privileges and immunities challenge.

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.

State v. Woolridge

101 Or. App. 390 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 25, 1990

That kind of conduct is going to get him in harm’s way if not qualify as danger to others. So I feel he should be committed. * * * Those kinds of threats are frightening to people. … We conclude that the state failed to meet the necessary burden of proof to establish appellant’s mental illness.

Samson v. Brown

310 Or. App. 319 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 31, 2021

The legislature could clearly have so provided if it chose.” … Ballot Measure #4 establishes no new min- imum or maximum sentences.” Voters’ Pamphlet at 18.

State v. Garcia

74 Or. App. 649 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 7, 1985

There was testimony, including that of the robbers, who had been granted immunity, from which a jury could have found that defendant agreed with the robbers to participate in the crime. 1 In return for a share of the proceeds … In any event, because of the first trial, defendant was clearly on notice of the state’s theory at the second trial. 3 Venue for both conspiracy and “accomplice robbery” would have been proper in the county where the agreement

State v. Rossiter

300 Or. App. 44 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 2019

There are also situations where a jury clearly is equally qualified without help from opinion testimony such as offered here. … It is the area between the clearly qualified and the clearly unqualified where the trial judge should be granted a cer- tain latitude of decision in excluding or receiving expert opinion testimony.” Yundt v.

City of Nyssa v. Dufloth

184 Or. App. 631 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 2002

We relied on the clearly established prohibition against the former to conclude that laws regulating the latter also qualify as a historical exception to Article I, section 8. … Stoneman, 323 Or 536, 545-49 , 920 P2d 535 (1996), the court qualified its reasoning in Tidyman and Robertson .

State v. Phillips

245 Or. App. 38 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 17, 2011

“And I — I think clearly that the only thing that showing this video and these photographs would be useful for would be to inflame the jury. … It’s clearly overly prejudicial, and that prejudicial highly outweighs any probative value of which I honestly don’t believe there’s any to begin with.”

Williams v. City of Astoria

43 Or. App. 745 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 1979

The statute before us is a general law which establishes the permissible degree of regulation of the political freedoms of public employees. … In a city, not more than 15 percent of the qualified voters may be required to propose legislation by the initiative, and not more than 10 percent of the qualified voters may be required to order a referendum on legislation

Slater v. SAIF Corp.

287 Or. App. 84 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 26, 2017

The board found that the medical evidence established “the presence of a statutory ‘preexisting condition’ (osteoarthritis),” citing Di Paola’s opinion, and that “the medical evidence establishes that the preexisting condition … The report clearly specifies that “no combined conditions” were affecting claimant’s impairment. C.

Public Utility Commission v. Tillotson

210 Or. App. 433 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 3, 2007

. * * * Misconduct has been *437 established.” As a result, the ALJ reversed the decision of the department and denied claimant’s request for benefits. Claimant appealed the ALJ’s decision to the board. … Until 2004, the rule did not further define or describe what qualifies as an “isolated instance of poor judgment.”

De Los-Santos v. Si Pac Enterprises, Inc.

278 Or. App. 254 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 11, 2016

It follows from Young that, to prevail on a new or omitted condition claim under ORS 656.267, the claimant must prove that the claimed new or omitted condition not only exists, but also qualifies as a condition, rather than … 656.267, regarding claims for “new and omitted medical conditions,” provides: “(1) To initiate omitted medical condition claims under ORS 656.262 (6)(d) or new medical condition claims under this section, the worker must clearly

Wolfe v. Brown

294 Or. App. 800 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 15, 2018

That is, in Prete , because the district court did not clearly err in finding that the plaintiffs in that case failed to establish that Article IV, section 1b, "significantly diminishes the pool of potential circulators, … Many persons interested in qualifying a measure for the Oregon ballot had told Day that the cost was too prohibitive.

Wood v. Baldwin

158 Or. App. 98 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 13, 1999

Thus, to establish the admissibility of exculpatory hearsay statements under that exception, the proponent must establish three elements: “(1) The declarant must be ‘unavailable’ to testify as defined under OEC 804(1); (2 … See Schutte, 146 Or App at 102-03 (“[A] qualifying statement need not be a confession to a crime” but must “tend” to subject the declarant to criminal liability.) (emphasis in original).

State v. B. P.

229 Or. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 2009

In addition to the information regarding threats to Bill Gates, ITT employees, and W, the questioning and testimony also established that B. … P. has a mental disorder, that he would not voluntarily participate in treatment, and that he did not qualify for conditional release.

Sobel v. Board of Pharmacy

130 Or. App. 374 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 1994

that he intentionally misrepresented facts clearly known to him because: “a) [Petitioner’s] testimony that he did not know of the 1972 suspension of his license and pharmacy permit and that he did not read the Stipulated … In an application proceeding, it is the applicant who has the burden of establishing eligibility, qualifications and fitness. See ORS 689.255; ORS 689.265.

Kimball v. Little River Lumber Co.

44 Or. App. 497 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 11, 1980

We find that the plaintiffs presented evidence of lost profits which was not "clearly insufficient” to establish their lost profits claim. … We do not find plaintiffs’ evidence to be "clearly insufficient” to establish lost profits. The motions for nonsuit on that basis were properly denied.

State v. Betcher

274 Or. App. 640 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 4, 2015

More than 30 years ago, the Oregon Supreme Court established a non-vouching rule. … But there hasn’t been any evidence that this officer is qualified to give that.”

Kay v. David Douglas School District No. 40

79 Or. App. 384 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 21, 1986

Such a defense is not relevant to a challenge under the Establishment Clause. Engel v. … Clearly, “the natural right to worship Almighty God,” protected by Article I, section 2, includes the right not to worship.

Bell v. Morales

207 Or. App. 326 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 16, 2006

Accordingly, defendant’s offer of $2,584 clearly represented new money of $2,088. … Considering the protections afforded both parties by statute, we conclude that plaintiff has not established that defendant’s offer was in some way improperly “conditional.”