Case law

Byrne Trucking, Inc. v. Employment Division

32 Or. App. 229 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 1978

. *235 THE INITIAL PREMISE ORS 657.040 states that in order to qualify for the (2)(a) exemption, an individual must be "customarily engaged in an independently established business * * In Republic, my brethren state that … In Kirkpatrick , the court clearly stated what was intended by the term "risk capital.”

Guzek v. Board of Parole

325 Or. App. 795 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 10, 2023

Petitioner, thus, failed to establish retroactive application of the statute. … The sentencing court could, and still may, impose up to a 30-year indeterminate sentence if it found that a defendant so qualified. ORS 161.725.

State Ex Rel. Oregon Consumer League v. Zielinski

60 Or. App. 654 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 1982

Clearly, appointing a person to the Board of Agriculture is an executive function. … ORS 696.405(1) provides: "The Real Estate Board is established within the Department of Commerce.

Wilson v. Smurfit Newsprint Corp.

197 Or. App. 648 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 23, 2005

The Supreme Cotut cases, then, establish that an action is willful if it is fully knowing, intentional, and voluntary. Clearly, a malicious action or one taken in bad faith qualifies. … A reasonable lack of knowledge of those historical facts immunizes the employer from penalties.

Morsman v. City of Madras

203 Or. App. 546 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 4, 2006

In certain other districts, all qualified voters were permitted to vote for board positions, and, in others, board members were appointed. *560 The Court held that, if a right to participate in an election is legislatively … established, a legislative determination of voter eligibility in the election is subject to strict scrutiny.

Edwards v. Employment Division

63 Or. App. 521 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 15, 1983

Claimant clearly admits that, during the weeks in issue, she was not able to work at her regular job and was therefore receiving Worker’s Compensation benefits. … The testimony clearly establishes that because of claimant’s medical restrictions, she is not able to return to work with her primary employer, the Weyerhaeuser Co.

Rustvold v. Taylor

171 Or. App. 128 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 22, 2000

After defendants’ negligence was discovered, plaintiff “underwent four immunization treatments in an effort to avoid contracting Hepatitis B.” … Clearly, at least some conditions and events that the law deems to be purely psychological qualify as medical concerns in the mind of a medical professional.

McDermott v. SAIF Corp.

286 Or. App. 406 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 28, 2017

Thus, where the issue is whether “an otherwise valid rule * * * conflicts with clearly stated statutory policy,” a court must “examine the applicable statutory wording in its context to determine the legislature’s intent. … that such a cause would qualify to reduce the impairment that is ‘due to’ a claimant’s compensable injury under ORS 656.214.”

Department of Land Conservation & Development v. Jackson County

151 Or. App. 210 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 19, 1997

See OAR 660-33-020(8). 1 Under ORS 215.283(2)(e), counties may allow golf courses as a conditional use on land that is zoned EFU. 2 However, subject to OAR 660-33-130(18), OAR 660-33-120 prohibits the establishment of golf … Quite clearly, because the rule refers to a statute addressing standards applicable to certain uses that may be established in EFU zones, the rule contemplates that the use be in an EFU zone.

State v. Lecarros

187 Or. App. 105 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 27, 2003

Clearly, ORS 830.035(1) suffices as a source of legal authority to conduct the seizure. Further, that statute authorizes the State Marine Board to promulgate implementing regulations. … Indeed, their uncontradicted testimony establishes that the decision to seize or not to seize any particular craft was entirely within their discretion.

State v. Freih

270 Or. App. 555 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 22, 2015

measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury; and “(b) The threatened injury is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly … However, even accepting that the claimed psychological harm would be sufficient to invoke ORS 161.200, defendant’s offer of proof was insufficient to establish entitlement to a jury instruction on the choice-of-evils defense

Pam's Carpet Service, Inc. v. Employment Division

46 Or. App. 675 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 23, 1980

It seems to us that an alleged employe not eligible for unemployment compensation because of ORS 657.150 is rather clearly not economically dependent upon his alleged employer. … individual shall be paid benefits during his benefit year in an amount which is to be determined by taking into account his weeks of work in subject employment in his base year as provided in this section. *684 "(2) To qualify

Travis v. Strubel

238 Or. App. 254 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 2010

To qualify as a predicate unwanted contact, any contact that involves speech must be a threat—that is, the sort of communication that `instills in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker … We therefore conclude that, although it was clearly in the parties' best interest to avoid each other, the facts as related to the court do not establish a sufficient basis for issuing an SPO. Reversed.

P. O. B. v. Harny

318 Or. App. 557 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 23, 2022

Here, nothing in the statutory scheme clearly limits a petitioner’s proof at hearing to the contacts identified in the complaint. … Souders, 334 Or 122, 128, 46 P3d 729 (2002) (concluding “that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish all the elements required to obtain an SPO”).

State v. Drown

245 Or. App. 447 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 8, 2011

“There was no evidence that anybody had been in serious health danger by virtue of failing to get immunization. … Making an argument in which defendant joined, Drown’s counsel responded: “Our argument here is that there is no duty which has been produced by way of any evidence, medical or otherwise, and clearly no evidence other than

Rivera v. Perlo Construction, LLC

336 Or. App. 307 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 20, 2024

In Gordineer, the employee brought a declaratory judgment action in circuit court to establish that his employer had committed fraud when she testified at his workers’ compensation hearing; specifically, he sought to establish … Finally, they have not argued that a qualified privilege should apply, which would provide additional protection from aiding and abetting liability.

State v. Partee

32 Or. App. 117 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 16, 1978

Gallatin also testified that he was aware that he could have received a long prison sentence if convicted of those crimes, and he admitted that he had been promised immunity with respect to all the crimes in return for his … At that point, the court ruled that defendant could not use Gallatin’s preliminary hearing testimony to establish a prior juvenile adjudication involving auto theft to impeach Gallatin.

Rivera v. Perlo Construction, LLC

336 Or. App. 307 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 20, 2024

In Gordineer, the employee brought a declaratory judgment action in circuit court to establish that his employer had committed fraud when she testified at his workers’ compensation hearing; specifically, he sought to establish … Finally, they have not argued that a qualified privilege should apply, which would provide additional protection from aiding and abetting liability.

Johnson v. Sunriver Resort Ltd. Partnership

252 Or. App. 299 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 12, 2012

Clearly Mr. Ohara failed to take proper action, which resulted in the default judgment being entered against the Defendant. Although Mr. … For the same reason, we reject plaintiff’s argument that Burke establishes a “higher standard” for insurance agents.

Baker v. Lane County

37 Or. App. 87 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 6, 1978

The simple answer to the first argument is that the issue of plaintiff’s status at the time of his injury was clearly presented in the earlier appeal. … Plaintiff next argues that defendant failed to establish that the proffered evidence of lack of previous accidents related to similar conditions.