Case law

Curry Properties, Inc. v. Coldiron

346 Or. App. 477 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 14, 2026

In April 2023, plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Curry County Circuit Court, seeking to establish an easement over an “existing road” that ran across defendant’s property. … It nevertheless noted that the claim for easement by necessity was “clearly devoid of any legal of factual support.”

Newport Church of the Nazarene v. Hensley

161 Or. App. 12 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 2, 1999

The Department attempts to cast Church’s argument as one based on the Establishment Clause, because-Church used in its argument the word “entanglement.” See Lemon v. … Article I, section 20: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.” 5 OAR 471-31-090(1) (1989) provided

State v. Fries

212 Or. App. 220 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 25, 2007

In summary, this court has no authority to immunize defendant for his possession of the controlled substances involved in this case; only the legislature has that authority. … Even if the claim of error qualified as error apparent on the face of the record (which we doubt is the case), we would not, under the circumstances of this case, exercise our discretion to review it.

State v. Horn

57 Or. App. 124 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 1982

We conclude that neither the Commission nor the legislature intended to immunize from prosecution *128 all persons who engage in communication while obstructing traffic. … Defendants argue that the state’s evidence establishes S.W.

CACV OF COLORADO, LLC v. Stevens

248 Or. App. 624 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 14, 2012

The absence of Oregon law on the imposition of a specific monetary limit on attorney-fee awards cannot establish that Oregon has a fundamental policy against the imposition of such a limit. … That is, to qualify as an ‘other instrument of writing’ within the meaning of [section 3912], a writing would have to evidence a debt.”). 18 For purposes of section 951, Delaware Code Annotated title 5, section 941(4), defines

Sweeney v. SMC Corp.

178 Or. App. 576 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 9, 2002

But that argument overlooks the fact that the range of claims coming within the Lemon Law is not dictated solely by what qualifies as a new passenger motor vehicle. … Because both ORS 646.375 and ORS 646.325 refer to “the remedy under” ORS 646.315 to ORS 646.375, and because that language in ORS 646.325 clearly means only the remedy available to a consumer under ORS 646.335(1) based on

State v. Bishop

49 Or. App. 1023 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 1980

However, the state granted the witness testimonial immunity, thereby eliminating any Fifth Amendment obstacle. State v. … "In order to establish criminally negligent homicide, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following: "First, that the crime was committed in Tillamook County, Oregon.

In re the Testamentary Trust Under the Will of Stuchell

104 Or. App. 332 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 21, 1990

If and when that happens, his ability to qualify for public assistance will be severely limited. … Clearly, the statute does not go that far.

Lane County v. State

104 Or. App. 372 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 21, 1990

Like BOLI, we conclude that reinstatement rights do not arise if the employer establishes that the worker was discharged from his pre-injury position for reasons unrelated to the injury or to his workers’ compensation claim … The issue that was raised there, and to which we confine our discussion, was clearly defined in his pleading: “Plaintiff refused to consider Defendant Ridings for appointment to said position of employment, based upon its

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

In re the Marriage of Dillard

179 Or. App. 24 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 2002

The order then addressed evidence that father had presented and explained why the court determined that none qualified as a substantial change of circumstances. … Because mother clearly apprised the trial court of the issues she intended to raise, however, we consider the motion and resulting ruling as if mother had used the correct label. Falk v.

Papworth v. Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development

255 Or. App. 258 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 13, 2013

“The measure is clearly structured to look at a snapshot. It says a claimant’s acquisition [date] is the date the claimant became the owner of the property [as] shown in the deed records. … In addition, regardless of whether a waiver was issued by the state or the county before December 6, 2007, to qualify for a home site approval under this section the claimant must establish that: “(a) The claimant is an owner

Langlotz v. Noelle

179 Or. App. 317 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2002

Further, the subsection immediately following subsection (3)(a) imposes on sheriffs a requirement to “conduct any investigation necessary” to establish that an applicant qualifies. ORS 166.291(3)(b) (emphasis added). … Nothing in subsection (1), however, says or even implies that merely supplying that information qualifies an applicant for a CHL.

Boytano v. Fritz

131 Or. App. 466 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 23, 1994

That section, too, establishes a limitation on the uses to which municipal funds may be applied. Both sections establish self-imposed limits on the authority of the municipal government. … However, the statute clearly could have no such effect. It provides remedies only as to measures that have been enacted or are being enforced.

State v. Zavala

276 Or. App. 612 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 2, 2016

The state argues that, in Williams , the court clearly indicated that OEC 403 determinations must be sought by the defendant: “We therefore hold that balancing is required by the Due Process Clause. … Kemna, 534 US 362, 375-78 , 122 S Ct 877 , 151 L Ed 2d 820 (2002) (discussing how “firmly established and regularly followed” state procedural rules may preclude review of federal constitutional errors); People v.

Vision Realty, Inc. v. Kohler

214 Or. App. 220 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 25, 2007

Those terms were sufficient to establish an enforceable listing agreement. Both the trial court and defendant confuse the relevant agreement. … The October 2002 letter of intent signed by defendant and the eventual lessee clearly stated that the lease term was to be ten years and specified a lease rate.

Miller v. State

298 Or. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 12, 2019

App. at 657 , 719 P.2d 1322 (qualified male applied for one of several available positions, but employer hired and employed only women). … The claim that McGrail was friendlier in his treatment toward men was clearly inconsistent with the prior statement that he treated them no differently.

Rendler v. Lincoln County

76 Or. App. 339 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 14, 1985

The interests intervenor seeks to protect are clearly germane to intervenor’s purpose: it was incorporated solely to “legally establish the prescriptive easement rights of the public to a pedestrian right of way” abutting … We conclude that intervenor qualifies for representational standing.

State v. Lopez

241 Or. App. 670 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 30, 2011

of the evidence code provides, in pertinent part: “(1) For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or established … ’s contrary construction is substantially predicated on the following recommendation in Professor Kirkpatrick’s treatise on Oregon evidence: “Although the beginning date for the calculation of the fifteen-year period is clearly

Simms v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, MULTNOMAH CTY.

13 Or. App. 119 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 26, 1973

It summarizes the rule: “It is a well-established rule of the law of torts that a teacher is immune from liability for physical punishment, reasonable in degree, administered to a pupil. … Clearly the court did not abuse its discretion here. Affirmed. ① From court’s Instructions: “A teacher is not justified to engage in wanton misconduct in ejecting a disruptive student.