Case law

State v. Haynes

149 Or. App. 73 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 2, 1997

To begin with, the statute states that such “public buildings” are included within the meaning of “protected property’ without explicit textual reference to the qualifier “customarily occupied by people.” … find that at the time of the fire the commercial establishment was not customarily occupied by the people.

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. England

52 Or. App. 843 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 1981

See OAR 412-21-015. 6 While that dilemma is unfortunate, and perhaps unintended, 7 Congress in enacting the ICWA clearly expressed its intent to extend procedural safeguards *852 only to Indian persons with legal custody … Petitioner has not maintained here that she qualifies as an Indian custodian by reason of that transfer.

Photo-Art Commercial Studios, Inc. v. Hunter

42 Or. App. 207 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 17, 1979

Defendants concede that plaintiff was qualified to produce the films and that there was little to distinguish its proposal from Odyssey’s. … Plaintiff did not seek to establish standing as one whose lower bid had been rejected. The state conceded that plaintiff had standing as a taxpayer.

State v. Horn-Garcia

320 Or. App. 100 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 8, 2022

The jury was clearly instructed that it should not consider the sentence that might be imposed if defendant was convicted. … “Recklessness alone, however, does not establish extreme indifference to the value of human life.

Arlington Education Ass'n v. Arlington School District No. 3

177 Or. App. 658 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 31, 2001

The AU recommended dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the union had failed to establish that the district had refused to arbitrate. … In the letter, the District states clearly that it was refusing to arbitrate the * * * grievance.

Sharp v. Employment Division

47 Or. App. 733 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 11, 1980

None of them had a separate business establishment or a separate business phone. They did not advertise their services or have business cards. … 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.” 46 Or App at 683-684 .

State v. Widerman

339 Or. App. 380 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 2, 2025

After all, lab tests are ‘not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation’ or mistake.” (Quoting Melendez-Diaz v. … Here, the state asserts that the records in this case qualify for the exception set out in Copeland. We disagree.

Portland Ass'n of Teachers v. Multnomah School District No. 1

171 Or. App. 616 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 27, 2000

ERB did not conclude that a teacher’s reassignment to a less desirable class or schedule could never qualify as coercive or other unlawful action within ORS 243.672(l)(a). … As ERB observed, the case presented a different question from the usual mixed-motive case because “the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ reasons for the denial of [the employee’s] transfer” could not be “clearly separated.”

Federation of Parole & Probation Officers v. State Ex Rel. Oregon Department of Corrections

144 Or. App. 535 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 20, 1996

Nor does that phrase alone suffice to create contractual obligations on behalf of the state. 3 A statute must be considered “in its entirety” and must “clearly and plainly” indicate the legislature’s intention to surrender … Plaintiffs next assign error to the trial court’s holding that ORS 423.549 does not violate Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution, which prohibits laws “granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities

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. … Spoto, 326 Or App 525, 528, that the claim for easement by necessity was “clearly devoid of any legal of factual support.” 480 Curry Properties, Inc. v.

G. A. C. v. State ex rel. Juvenile Department

219 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 26, 2008

Mother also testified that “I don’t think I’m qualified any more to help [V] with all the psychological issues that she has.” … See, e.g., ORS 30.936 (defining claim for physical injury, for immunity purposes, with reference to ORS 161.015).

Department of Human Services v. A.B.

286 Or. App. 578 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2017

The court then ordered briefing on the issue of “whether the Court can dismiss DHS and establish an out of state guardianship with Grandfather.” … care of qualified persons.

State v. Hallam

307 Or. App. 796 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 2020

Although the, Deputy Gardner could not say exactly each minute what he was doing, he very clearly indicated that he was waiting for the criminal history check by dispatch. … Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution establishes the right of the people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure.”

Newcomer v. Clackamas County

92 Or. App. 174 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 20, 1988

However, we do not believe the statute in question allows construction of farm dwellings before establishment of farm uses on the land. … County argues, alternatively, that its decision is affirmable under ORS 197.835(10)(b), notwithstanding any defect in the finding, because there is “relevant evidence in the record which clearly supports the decision.”

State v. SUPANCHICK

245 Or. App. 651 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 2011

But in a domestic violence situation, you already have someone who’s not thinking clearly. “Q. Right. “A. … There is no question that he was qualified to testify regarding proper police procedures.

Thoens v. Safeco Insurance

272 Or. App. 512 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 22, 2015

Delamarter testified that the amount of force necessary to cause injury varies from one person to the next: “[I] it is clearly different for different people. … Probst established adequate “knowledge, skill, experience, training [and] education” to qualify him to calculate and testify to the impact speed in the collision, the forces transmitted to plaintiff in her car in the collision

State v. Lykins

259 Or. App. 475 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 20, 2013

According to the state, defendant was “clearly in a position [to know] that [O’Connor] was of a * * * mental and physical, fragile, or limited state during this time period and [defendant] took advantage of that * * * ” Defendant … As we explained in Enemesio, “[t]hat factor qualifies as an aggravating factor only when ‘the court determines that the offender’s knowledge of or disregard for the victim’s vulnerability increased the potential harm attributed

Tirumali v. City of Portland

169 Or. App. 241 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 26, 2000

In this case, the building permits approve a building height based on the grade that was established as a result of filling in a portion of the lower part of the property. … That ambiguity is resolved by the definition of ‘grade’ at PCC 33.910.030, which clearly specifies that the grade is located based on ‘finished surface.’ ” (Emphasis in original; footnotes omitted.)

State v. Brewer

260 Or. App. 607 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 2014

Anderson treated ORS 138.222 as merely a review-ability statute, relevant to establishing which issues may be considered in an appeal but not pertinent to establishing jurisdiction over an appeal. … Defendant argued that she qualified under ORS 137.712(2)(d)(B) because the teller’s fear was not objectively reasonable.

State v. Chipman

176 Or. App. 284 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 29, 2001

The NIDA standards mention only five specific classes of controlled substances by name, and they are clearly intended to provide detection level “cut-off’ standards of testing for marijuana, cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine … See, e.g., ORS 813.160(1) (“To be valid under ORS 813.300 * * *, the chemical analysis of a person’s blood shall be performed by an individual shown to be qualified to perform such analyses [.]”).