Case law

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.

Revlon Services, Inc. v. Employment Division

30 Or. App. 729 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 22, 1977

The double requirement, that the worker’s occupation be "independently established” and that he be "customarily” engaged in it, clearly calls for an enterprise created and existing separate and apart from the relationship … Under the new paragraph (2)(b) test, it is apparent that the salesmen in Baker would have qualified as independently established businesses.

Durham v. City of Portland

181 Or. App. 409 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 8, 2002

First, [plaintiff] has failed to establish the causal link prong of her prima facie case. … Although Tate [plaintiffs immediate supervisor] clearly disagree[d] with Phillips’ final choice, I do not see evidence of pretext.

State v. Meiser

308 Or. App. 570 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 21, 2021

That caused him to lose the ability to think clearly and cre- ated memory problems.5 Before the shooting incident, he drank alcohol. … After reviewing the evidence in that light, we conclude that a rational factfinder could have determined that defendant failed to establish that his asserted incapacity was the result of schizophrenia, defen- dant’s qualifying

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.

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.

Dept. of Human Services v. K. B. L.

340 Or. App. 482 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 14, 2025

Here, no such foundation was established. Reardon did not create the reports or have any insight into how the reports were generated. … M was able to clearly articulate how he was injured, and those state- ments matched the injury and were made near the time of the injury.

Cox Ex Rel. Cox v. State

191 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 26, 2003

The framers revealed their understanding (or mis understanding) of equality clearly and often. … Here, for example, defendant maintains that plaintiffs have not established that students in other districts are receiving the privilege of a better education; at most, the record establishes that their district's system

Rogers v. Meridian Park Hospital

93 Or. App. 533 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 26, 1988

Expert testimony also established that medical opinion differs regarding the appropriate time to remove the tube after surgery is completed. … Plaintiff might have developed more clearly the basis for exception, but the exception was sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. Mariman v. Hultberg, 82 Or App 535 , 728 P2d 919 (1986).

Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer School District

185 Or. App. 649 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 8, 2003

“(d) Agency denial of a motion for stay is subject to review by the Court of Appeals under such rules as the court may establish.” … The agency functions as more than mere interpreter; it may make rules within the range of discretion established by the statutory terms.” Ross v. Springfield School Dist.

State v. Amoroso

336 Or. App. 732 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 11, 2024

Thus, we must interpret what the word “seal” means in OEC 902 and determine whether the proposed judgment’s stamp qualifies as such. … When the legislature uses legal terminology, we look to its “established legal meaning” in legal dictionaries. Id. (citing Comcast Corp., 356 Or at 296).

Davis v. State

267 Or. App. 264 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 26, 2014

immunity. … We must ask whether ORS 12.220 “establishes a separate limitation *271 period for commencing an action” or whether it does something else, such as toll or extend the time in which to file an action, provide when an action

Hoke v. May Department Stores Co.

133 Or. App. 410 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 8, 1995

The court intervenes only when it can say that the actor’s conduct clearly meets the standard or clearly falls below it.’ ” Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. … We cannot say, as a matter of law, that defendant’s conduct in investigating the prior complaint clearly meets the standard of reasonableness.

City of Eugene v. Miller

119 Or. App. 293 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 1993

Defendant did not have a license and, apparently, had not applied for one. 1 He contends that section 3.338(e) violates the equal protection, the equal privileges and immunities and the free speech provisions of the state … When they are so read, any overbreadth in section 14.24.160 is cured by the variance and exemption procedures that Title 18 establishes.

State v. Branstetter

166 Or. App. 286 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 22, 2000

On the other hand, an order denying a motion in the nature of coram nobis did not qualify, because the motion was part of a criminal proceeding. Id. at 6 . … In doing so, we emphasized that the proceeding involved clearly defined parties and was not part of any other judicial proceeding. In State v.

Maulding v. Clackamas County

27 Or. App. 571 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 29, 1976

Prior to submission of the case to the jury, defendant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the allegations of negligence were all matters of discretion for which the county is immune. … Applying the reasoning of Beglau to the case at bar, we find that this case clearly does not fall within categories (1) or (2).

Dept. of Human Services v. J. M. R.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 2, 2024

Second, she argues that the juvenile court plainly erred by admitting expert testimony and evalua- tions from two witnesses without requiring the department to establish a sufficient basis for qualifying those witnesses as … Preservation principles require “a party to explain its objection clearly enough for the opposing party, and the trial court, to understand the issue and either avoid an error, or correct an error if one has occurred.”

Dept. of Human Services v. J. M. R.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 2, 2024

Second, she argues that the juvenile court plainly erred by admitting expert testimony and evalua- tions from two witnesses without requiring the department to establish a sufficient basis for qualifying those witnesses as … Preservation principles require “a party to explain its objection clearly enough for the opposing party, and the trial court, to understand the issue and either avoid an error, or correct an error if one has occurred.”

State v. Hughes

344 Or. App. 648 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 13, 2025

We review whether a defendant established substantial prejudice for legal error. Id. Here, we conclude that defendant failed to establish a case-specific theory of substantial prejudice supported by the record. … Worsham, 373 Or 739, 748, 571 P3d 759 (2025) (“[I]t is gen- erally impossible for a trial court’s failure to give an unre- quested custom supplemental instruction to qualify as plain error.”

State v. Hughes

344 Or. App. 648 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 13, 2025

We review whether a defendant established substantial prejudice for legal error. Id. Here, we conclude that defendant failed to establish a case-specific theory of substantial prejudice supported by the record. … Worsham, 373 Or 739, 748, 571 P3d 759 (2025) (“[I]t is generally impossible for a trial court’s failure to give an unrequested custom sup- plemental instruction to qualify as plain error.”