Case law

State v. Mallory

213 Or. App. 392 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 20, 2007

According to the state, defendant did not clearly argue to the trial court that a jury had to find that any predicate offense arose from a criminal episode separate from the offenses for which enhanced sentences were imposed … the Court concluded that the disputed fact— that is, whether the prior conviction was for “generic burglar/’ — was “too far removed from the conclusive significance of a prior judicial record” to say that the judge was clearly

West v. Bowers

11 Or. App. 364 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 1972

One can be a “resident” for voting purposes without having the intent to remain permanently, see., 35 Op Att’y Gen 933 (Or 1971), which is necessary to qualify for “resident” tuition rates. … We hold that petitioner did exhaust all clearly available remedies.

Cooper v. Robert G. Rust, Jr., D.M.D., PC

343 Or. App. 390 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 2025

OAR 839-006-0206(4) 4 establishes that request- ing accommodation is part of an “interactive process,” which places burdens on both the employee and the employer. … Under Oregon law, employers may not fail to accom- modate a “qualified individual with a disability.” ORS 659A.112(2)(e). Qualified means that a person “with or without 400 Cooper v. Robert G.

State v. Seay

347 Or. App. 180 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 19, 2026

Although the facts underlying defendant’s guilty plea would have qualified as first-degree abuse of corpse had the statute existed at the time, he was in fact not con- victed of that crime. … ORS 137.225(6) (f) establishes that the set aside statute does not apply to convictions for any sex crime, apart from a few limited exceptions not applicable to this case.

Krein v. Szewc

287 Or. App. 481 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2017

Defendants answered by asserting the farm use immunity defense as an affirmative defense. … , namely when and to what extent the defendants had a qualifying farm operation.”

Perry v. Rein

215 Or. App. 113 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 26, 2007

It is well established that a termination resulting from a settlement among the parties is not a favorable termination as to any of those parties. … Moreover, the policy *131 favoring settlement does not somehow immunize parties who otherwise bring actions without probable cause and with malice; otherwise, it would essentially license extortion, provided that an appropriate

State v. Higley

236 Or. App. 570 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 11, 2010

The equal privileges and immunities clause is also implicated when vague laws give unbridled discretion to judges and jurors to decide what is *574 prohibited in a given case, for this results in the unequal application of … Clearly, this testimony demonstrates that the deputy subjectively believed that defendant was driving a vehicle in violation of ORS 815.250(1). The evidence also demonstrates that his belief was objectively reasonable.

STATE EX REL. JUV. DEPT. OF CLATSOP COUNTY v. Martin

19 Or. App. 28 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 23, 1974

Martin and each of the four doctors appears to lack merit in light of the facts established in this record. … The way to decision is not clearly marked for us.

State v. Gardner

71 Or. App. 590 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 9, 1985

He contends that his conviction on the pointing a firearm at another charge immunizes him from further prosecution for the ex-convict in possession offense, on the basis of statutory and constitutional prohibitions against … That rule clearly puts the burden of initial joinder on the state.

State v. Whitmore

257 Or. App. 664 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 24, 2013

Qualify her as an expert on this issue. I think it goes to the jury to determine the value or weight to determine that testimony in light of the overall circumstances. … The trial court erred in not requiring the state to show that her methods were scientifically valid under the standards established in Brown and O’Key .

State v. Oneill

256 Or. App. 537 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 2013

Haugen, 349 Or 174, 202 , 243 P3d 31 (2010) (reasoning that the legislature’s use of a qualifying term in one section and not *542 another “demonstrates that the legislature knew how to use such a term but did not do so”) … injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.’” 306 Or at 606 n 5 (quoting ORS 161.200).

Wright v. Wells

231 Or. App. 349 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 14, 2009

The evidence clearly demonstrates an express agreement. Defendants also contend that, because the fence was meant to keep cattle away from Dye’s garden, “[m]ost likely it was intended as a mere barrier.” We disagree. … by a qualified surveyor.”

Dintleman and Dintleman

340 Or. App. 213 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 30, 2025

That judgment provided that husband’s “military retirement ben- efits shall be equally divided as of the date of marriage to May 15, 2009,” and that the parties “shall cooperate with each other in every respect to cause a Qualified … Specifically, husband argues that he estab- lished excusable neglect under ORCP 71 B(1) because “he received no notice” of the supplemental judgment, “the court records show[ ] no motion or service was made on husband,” and he “clearly

Portland Columbia Symphony v. Employment Department

284 Or. App. 256 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 8, 2017

In short, the record clearly establishes that the musicians have made significant investments in the equipment that is necessary to engage in the business of musical performance. … As a logical and practical matter, a person is likely to incur expenses in pursuit of establishing a business before actually establishing it.

Matter of Marriage of Landis

200 Or. App. 107 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 1, 2005

The waiver referred to is established by 10 USC section 3105 ; a veteran who qualifies for retirement pay but who wants to receive disability pay under title 38 as well must, in order to prevent “double dipping * * * waive … Clauson, 831 P2d 1257, 1259 (Alaska 1992), the Alaska Supreme Court reasoned: “The Mansell holding clearly prohibits state courts from treating veterans’ disability pay as divisible property upon divorce.

State v. Sanchez-Alfonso

238 Or. App. 160 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 2010

In rejecting that argument, the court first reiterated the well-established criteria for the admissibility of scientific evidence. … As a medically trained pediatrician specializing in the field of child abuse treatment for 14 years, Skinner was qualified.

Allen v. County of Jackson

169 Or. App. 116 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 12, 2000

immunities secured by federal law as well. … If that analysis clearly identifies the legislature’s intent, further inquiry is unnecessary. ORS 652.110 to ORS 652.200 pertain to the payment and collection of unpaid wages generally.

Buena Dairy Associates v. State Department of Agriculture

25 Or. App. 381 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 17, 1976

The letter read in pertinent part: "(2) Your clients’ adjusted quota established February 1, 1973, shall remain unaffected for a period of 90 days from the date hereof, subject to the following conditions: "(a) Within such … time period, your clients submit, *384 and obtain departmental approval of, applications for transfer of the involved quotas to qualified quota-holding producers, such to be performed in accordance with Oregon regulations

Schlumberger Technologies, Inc. v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District

145 Or. App. 12 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 1996

ORS 701.005(2) defines a “contractor” who must register with the Board to include a person who, for purposes that clearly apply here, “submits a bid to construct, alter, repair, add to, subtract from, improve, inspect, move … In this case, plaintiff asserts that Tri-Met violated those statutes in two ways: First, that Tri-Met awarded the contract to S&B when that entity was not a legally qualified bidder.

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.