Case law

Sherwood School District 88J v. Washington County Education Service District

167 Or. App. 372 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 24, 2000

Third, the Supreme Court also has held that a necessary incident of the legislature’s authority to establish a uniform and general system of common schools is the authority to establish or change the boundaries of school … In other districts, all qualified voters were entitled to vote on school board membership. In still other districts, school board members were appointed.

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.

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.

Robinson v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District

277 Or. App. 60 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 16, 2016

She argues that “ORS 742.061(3) immunity is conditioned upon whether a prohibited issue is raised, *70 and not whether proof on the prohibited issue is actually presented.” 9 (Emphasis in original.) … Under ORS 278.215(2), “[a]ny local public body, as defined in ORS 30.260, which establishes a self-insurance program under ORS 30.282 for or on account of the operation of motor vehicles within the local public body’s control

City of Damascus v. Brown

266 Or. App. 416 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 22, 2014

Section 1(3) sets out the process that a qualifying landowner must follow to withdraw the landowner’s property from the city. … Rather, HB 4029 establishes — as legislative policy — that the decision whether to alter the city’s boundary should be made by certain eligible landowners.

State v. Kersting

50 Or. App. 461 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 1981

A party making an alleged oral admission may have been misinformed or may not have clearly expressed his meaning, or the witness testifying thereto may have misunderstood him; or it may be that the witness who testifies to … Mower, supra. 4 If a due process violation is established, the trial court must take whatever action is reasonably necessary to prevent prejudice to the defendant. E.g., State v. Mower, supra.

Riggs v. Douglas County

167 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 3, 2000

In that application [petitioner] sought to establish that there was a demonstrated need for rural residential housing in the vicinity. … The court continued: “ ‘To qualify as “agricultural land” under [OAR 660-333-0020(l)(b)], both the higher and lower quality lands must be part of a farm unit.

State v. Williams

161 Or. App. 111 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 1999

Clearly, the state is relying on section (b) of the statute, pertaining to handguns in vehicles. … That provision clearly does not apply given the facts of this case and no extensive discussion of it is called for here. See generally State v.

State v. Berg

60 Or. App. 142 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 1982

Antonson clearly had probable cause. Although the mobility of an automobile, without more, may not be sufficient to establish exigent circumstances, State v. … In so doing, the peace officer shall act with the same rights, privileges and immunities as are otherwise provided by law.”

State v. Dunham

336 Or. App. 30 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 6, 2024

For present purposes, we assume without deciding that unitary assessments qualify as fines under ORS 161.685(5). 34 State v. … For instance, a proceeding can qualify as a “separate and distinct judicial proceeding” even if it arises, as a formal matter, within the bounds of an existing criminal case.

Hannigan v. Hinton

195 Or. App. 345 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 2004

Although ORS 540.610 is not itself included in the Water Rights Act, portions of the Act, to which mining water rights are clearly subject, incorporate the limitations of ORS 540.610. … Petitioners next argue that, even if their water rights can be forfeited, the use of the water at a location other than the certificated place of use qualifies as “use” that precludes forfeiture of the right under ORS 540.610

Eugene Water & Elec. Bd. v. MWH Ams., Inc.

293 Or. App. 41 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 25, 2018

EWEB requested an order "establishing parallel litigation tracks, allowing EWEB to simultaneously pursue its claims against [AAC] in arbitration and its claims against MWH here, in Lane County Circuit Court." … In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by EWEB on any form of defense or immunity, whether sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, immunity based on the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United

Fischer v. Benton County

244 Or. App. 166 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 13, 2011

The expenditure ratio factor clearly weighs in [the county’s] favor. … Whether zoning permissions have ripened to a degree sufficient to immunize the use from regulatory controls is tested by the ‘common law vested right’ doctrine referenced in section 5(3) of Measure 49.”); Pete’s Mountain

State v. Moyer

225 Or. App. 81 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 7, 2009

According to the trial court, “political contributions are clearly speech,” and the challenged statute equally clearly regulated it without the safe harbor of a historical exception to the protections afforded by constitutional … In the alternative, if it is a Robertson first-category statute, it nevertheless is wholly contained within a well-established historical exception.

State v. Woodman

195 Or. App. 385 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 22, 2004

Clearly, based on the testimony of the two witnesses here * * * I think this does affect a substantial right of the defendant.” … Harvey, 303 Or 351, 354 , 736 P2d 191 (1987) (“[I]f the actor’s conduct otherwise qualifies as a crime, the fact that he has a personal defense of acting under duress by another person hardly can be a defense to that other

State v. BP

229 Or. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 2009

In this case, the parties agree that B.P. has a mental disorder, that he would not voluntarily participate in treatment, and that he did not qualify for conditional release. … Beil, 196 Or.App. 501, 506 , 102 P.3d 757 (2004), or they are made under unusual circumstances that make actual *978 future violence highly likely—that is, the threats clearly form a foundation for predicting future dangerousness

State v. Clemens

208 Or. App. 632 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 11, 2006

The record does not clearly establish whether Robles intended by his statements to do more than explain why he tends to take extra care, as a matter of practice, to conduct his interviews with children reporting sexual abuse … Milbradt, 305 Or 621, 631 , 756 P2d 620 (1988) (“[C]ases involving ‘syndrome’ testimony [require that] full foundations be established!.]”).

ACN Opportunity, LLC v. Employment Department

278 Or. App. 697 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 8, 2016

The ALJ concluded that OAR 471-031-0125 “clearly and unambiguously requires face-to-face contact in the customer’s home as a condition of exclusion under ORS 657.087(2) [.]” … Thus, the ALJ determined that ACN had not established that its IBOs’ services qualified for the ORS 657.087(2) exemption from “employment” because it had not established “the extent” to which the IBOs’ compensation resulted

Watkins v. Josephine County

243 Or. App. 52 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 25, 2011

See id. at 375 (majority states that “[t]he statutory pension system and the relationship between the state and its employees clearly established a contractual obligation” (emphasis added)). … In any event, the charter clearly is an important part of the rules’ context; that context, along with the text of the disputed benefit provisions, not only fails to unambiguously establish a promise of permanence; they establish

Yes on 24-367 Committee v. Deaton

276 Or. App. 347 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 2016

Brown introduced SJR 52, which would have established a new statewide property tax.’ «<*** [¿y|t a time when the people were clearly saying they wanted LOWER PROPERTY TAXES, [Brown] introduced legislation to add a new, state-wide … That document, which is in the record, clearly itemizes the two different existing fire district assessments.