Case law

State v. Shumate

262 Or. App. 109 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 2, 2014

enter a general judgment of conviction and sentence that generally reflects the terms described in the 1987 sentencing order, (2) whether defendant properly could appeal that judgment, and (3) if so, whether defendant has established … The DOC declined to do so, asserting that it could not “act on the order and transcript in Clackamas County case no. 86-945” and would “require a new sentencing judgment that clearly imposes the 30-year sentence for attempted

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.

Rund v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

152 Or. App. 231 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 21, 1998

ORS 421.590 establishes the procedure to be followed by the Board when establishing PPS for a convicted sexual offender. … ordered petitioner to be incarcerated in state prison pursuant to ORS 144.108, it withdrew that order and, on reconsideration, ordered a local sanction of 90 days’ incarceration pursuant to ORS 144.106. 9 ORS *238 144.106(3) clearly

Coleman v. SAIF

304 Or. App. 122 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 13, 2020

In his second and third assignments of error, claimant contends that the board erred in concluding that neither his attor- ney’s letter to an administrative law judge (ALJ) nor his treating physician’s chart note qualified … SAIF, 300 Or App 267, 268, 452 P3d 1039 (2019) (unchallenged findings of historical facts “establish the facts for purposes of judicial review”). B.

Young v. State

161 Or. App. 32 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 2, 1999

Because the qualifying phrase “as defined in ORS 243.650” directly follows the term “public employer” and is not set off by commas, it must, under the last antecedent rule, modify only that term. State v. … In other words, PGE instructs that the legislative power includes the authority to write a seemingly absurd law, so long as the intent to do that is stated clearly. PGE, 317 Or at 610-12 .

Penuel v. Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc.

127 Or. App. 195 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 30, 1994

Neither of the girls, individually, could have qualified for any of those investments. … At best, the trust might have qualified for two of the limited partnership investments.

Akiyama v. Tillamook County

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 26, 2024

For example, the ordinance limits the number of licenses to one per licensee,6 establishes geographical subareas within the county and limits the number of licenses that may be issued for each subarea, establishes a density … limitation on the issuance of short-term rental licenses, and establishes a minimum rental rate requirement to qualify for license renewal.

State v. Balukovic

153 Or. App. 253 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 1, 1998

Once a defendant pleads guilty, ORS 138.050 clearly limits review to the sentence imposed and does not include review of the underlying proceedings that led to his conviction. See, e.g., State v. … On appeal, defendant contends that ORS 45.275, which provides, in part, that “[t]he court shall appoint a qualified interpreter.”

State v. Camarena

208 Or. App. 575 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 11, 2006

In that regard, the Court noted that learning the name of the defendant was necessary to establish the severity of the situation (to establish, for example, whether the defendant was a violent felon). Id. … Defendant had left the house about a minute before the call was made, and Carder was clearly still frightened.

Guzek v. Board of Parole

Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 10, 2023

Petitioner, thus, failed to establish retroactive application of the statute. … The sentencing court could, and still may, impose up to a 30-year indeterminate sentence if it found that a defendant so qualified. ORS 161.725.

Castagna v. Western Graphics Corp.

38 Or. App. 403 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 6, 1979

The authorities clearly do not support that conclusion. … This section is qualified by Section 892B, Comment g, as follows: Kg. Mistake as to matters not affecting invasion or harm.

Ogden v. Bureau of Labor

68 Or. App. 235 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 9, 1984

American Standard, Inc., 640 F2d 974 (9th Cir 1981), the court, interpreting the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 USC §§ 621-634 (1976 & Supp II 1978), adopted the “determining factor” test established in Laugesen … That method of computation assumes that the entire amount of damages became due on the date of applicant’s rejection, which is clearly error.

Sparks v. Deveny

221 Or. App. 283 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 23, 2008

To obtain an SPO under that statute, a petitioner must establish several things. … Under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, contacts that consist of speech are subject to a heightened standard of proof. 5 To qualify as a predicate unwanted contact, any contact that consists of speech must

State v. Vincent

334 Or. App. 714 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 5, 2024

Evans acknowledged that he “d[id]n’t know what’s going on in their head,” but believed that “they had known that they had been in the wrong, clearly, and were trying to get away from witnesses and/or police.” … That suspicion arises from a general concern about the veracity of a witness who has admitted to committing a crime and a specific concern that an accom- plice might be induced by promises of leniency or immunity to testify

Warm Springs Forest Products Industries v. Employee Benefits Insurance

74 Or. App. 422 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 17, 1985

In its haste to affirm the dismissal of plaintiff's claims, the majority virtually ignores that fact and adopts a rationale which is contrary to established legal principles and unsupported by the record. … There is no indication that any lender or other entity insisted that it give up its sovereign immunity from suit in Oregon courts.

Loomis v. Board of Psychologist Examiners

152 Or. App. 466 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 11, 1998

The Board found that petitioner’s affidavit had stated an opinion as to the best interests of the children and had purported to compare the relative merits of the parents without clearly stating that the opinion was based … A licensing agency may discipline a licensee for false trial testimony, however, even if that individual is immune from civil suit.

State v. Ortiz

325 Or. App. 134 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 5, 2023

Vage, 278 Or App 771, 777, 379 P3d 645, rev den, 360 Or 697 (2016) (“It is well established that an error does not qualify as plain error if the record contains a competing inference that the party may have had a strate- … That testimony was sufficient to qualify Miguel to offer 156 State v.

Reed v. DEL CHEMICAL CORPORATION

26 Or. App. 733 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 13, 1976

He did undergo some additional medical examination by qualified specialists who indicated that diagnostic treatment should be pursued with the possible necessity for surgery thereafter dependent upon the diagnosis rendered … "The medical evidence alone is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case in claimant’s favor.

King v. Warner Pac. Coll., an Or. Corp.

296 Or. App. 155 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 21, 2019

Plaintiff argues "that Oregon did not intend to allow a [religious] school to avoid hiring a qualified individual when another qualified individual of a preferred religion did not apply." … This New Testament writer, the Apostle Paul, clearly states his own achievement motivation: to be pleasing to God.

Warren v. Burnham

341 Or. App. 226 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 2025

Limited use of property can qualify as open and notorious posses- sion, “but only if it is significant enough to put an owner on notice that his or her title is being challenged.” Hoffman v. … The portion of the strip affected by the bark dust was never clearly defined.