Case law

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. Apperson

85 Or. App. 429 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 20, 1987

The parties agree that the statements do not qualify for admission under any of the specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. … Clearly, their admission is necessary to the state's prosecution of the case and serves the interests of justice.

Dept. of Human Services v. C. E. S.

328 Or. App. 57 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 13, 2023

C undoubtedly benefits from the existence of those records in terms of any ongoing care she receives from her provid- ers, and she clearly has a privacy interest in the information contained in those records, but that does … Also, ORS 192.553(2) expressly recognizes that the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) establishes “additional rights and obligations regarding the use and disclosure of protected health information

Employment Division v. Ring

104 Or. App. 713 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 19, 1990

She was not engaged in activities that qualified as “employment” under any statute, and no remuneration for past services was paid or payable to her. … In designing Oregon’s unemployment insurance system, the legislature’s policy choices are clearly revealed in its definitions of “wages” and “employment.”

State v. Jones

258 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 14, 2013

practical and prudential underpinnings of the preservation doctrine and emphasized that defendant’s appellate contention as to the categorical inadmissibility of the evidence was qualitatively different from that ‘“presented clearly … Pitt, 352 Or 566, 579 , 293 P3d 1002 (2012) (“When the act is so established by the defendant’s stipulation, or when the trial court instructs *8 the jury that it first must find from the evidence that the alleged act occurred

Dorvinen v. Crook County

153 Or. App. 391 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 15, 1998

It provides that, ip. the absence of the qualifying circumstances that are described in ORS 215.780(2) and that are not present here, the 80-acre minimum parcel size is an across-the-board requirement in EFU zones. … 215.263(4) provide no basis for concluding that the minimum parcel size requirement of ORS 215.780(l)(a) does not apply to the parcels that result from land divisions for nonfarm dwellings, and the language of ORS 215.780(1) clearly

Polaski v. Clark

158 Or. App. 166 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 1999

For example, it may be possible for an individual to qualify as a resident of Oregon for purposes of voting or obtaining an Oregon driver’s license and not meet the residency requirements established by these rules. “(2) … “The evidence before me and before [the vice chancellor] clearly establishes an intent to establish residence here, and that a slavish attention to parts of that ruling is not warranted.

In Re the Marriage of Fedorov

228 Or. App. 50 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 29, 2009

Since long-distance moves may severely erode established relationships between three-year-olds and their non-moving parent unless there is broad and meaningful interaction at least every month, a relocation to Australia will … Certainly, we find no “clearly articulable reasons” for reversing its decision. We can, in fact, hardly improve upon the court’s careful and thorough findings, which we have already summarized.

Beal v. City of Gresham

166 Or. App. 528 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 12, 2000

This means that a court may inquire into whether the measure is ‘municipal legislation,’ because the qualifying language is used in the constitution itself. … The first clause is a prohibition on city action; it prohibits the city from constructing a limited access road or highway of more than four lanes within the city limits. 6 That prohibition is clearly legislative.

School District No. 48 v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Board

14 Or. App. 634 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 8, 1973

The individual or individuals within the school district who are responsible for evaluation for each professional should be clearly identified.” … The only one omitted, No. 3 in the notice of charges, clearly related to a matter which would not be established by opinion evidence.

State v. White

4 Or. App. 151 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 10, 1970

Since he quite clearly did not admit that the exemplar was genuine, we must determine whether the state established that the defendant treated it as such. The Oregon Supreme Court in State v. … Proof that defendant authored a writing is sufficient to establish that he treated that writing as genuine.

Davis v. County of Clackamas

205 Or. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 3, 2006

And at that point, were you able to clearly see to your left * * * down Jennings? “A. I was. “Q. You’ve made mention of a butterfly bush. “A. Right. “Q. All right. … OEC 602; OEC 701. 2 Nor does Voss’s opinion as to what caused the accident qualify as expert testimony because, in reaching his opinion, he did not apply specialized knowledge such as that of an accident reconstructionist

State v. Miller

208 Or. App. 424 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 4, 2006

In Davis/Hammon, the Court considered whether statements made by victims of domestic violence qualified as testimonial. … The statements made in the lab reports at issue here are clearly intended to be used in a criminal prosecution to prove past events — the presence of controlled substances in defendant’s urine at a specific time in the past

Martinez v. Kulongoski

220 Or. App. 142 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 21, 2008

That initiative was subsequently certified, and qualified for the ballot of the November 2, 2004, general election, as Ballot Measure 36 (2004). … The Supreme Court observed that the measure contained multiple implicit substantive changes to the constitution: It altered jury trial rights as established by Article I, section 11, juror qualifications as established by

Vermeulen v. Department of Human Services

231 Or. App. 410 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 28, 2009

It is undisputed that, but for the disqualifying transfer of her home, claimant otherwise qualified for Medicaid. *415 In a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) of the Office of Administrative Hearings, claimant … took the position that, although clearly the transfer of the house triggered a presumption that the transfer occurred to create eligibility, she could rebut the presumption for either of two reasons.

City of Portland v. Ristick

150 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 17, 1997

The supervisor explained that all of the work was necessary to qualify for a rehabilitation loan through PDC. … Pursuant to the Act, the city adopted Portland City Code (PCC) Section 29.90.010 through 29.90.1Í0 to establish the authority and procedures for housing receivership within the city.

State v. Stafford

157 Or. App. 445 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 1998

He was clearly qualified to do that. Moreover, because most of the children whom he had interviewed were known to have been abused, there was a low potential for error in his observations. … He was clearly qualified to so testify. Knapp’s testimony consisted mostly of factual observations about the behavior of sexual offenders.

Providence Health & Services-Oregon v. Mancuso

323 Or. App. 573 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 5, 2023

Whether historic Medicare cost to charge ratio data were relevant to what defendant was obliged to pay under the Plan clearly requires interpretation of the Plan, and thus was correctly found to be preempted by ERISA. … its administrator GPA, impos- ing arbitrary reductions in payments to or on behalf of [plaintiff’s] or its affiliates’ patients which are not actually supported by the terms of the plan and which have not been clearly

Employment Division v. Surata Soy Foods, Inc.

63 Or. App. 221 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 11, 1983

. * * * (5) These initial five individuals and others who subsequently qualified as ‘members’ of the cooperative, collectively operated as the Board of Directors, and in this capacity elected the corporate officers, designated … Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 1 With respect to finding 16, the evidence clearly showed that members worked under the direction of the board of directors as to what shift they would work and what product

State v. Easton

204 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 25, 2006

This court’s decisions establish that “a disposition exceeds the maximum allowed by law if it is not imposed consistently with statutory requirements.” State v. … And, it clearly has done so by enacting ORS 138.083, which specifically allows for the type of sentence modification at issue in this case, notwithstanding that the sentence has been executed. See State v.