Case law

State v. Miles

197 Or. App. 86 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 12, 2005

He contends that Leveque qualifies as an “attending physician” within the meaning of the statute. We reject that contention. … Because Leveque did not have “primary responsibility” for defendant’s care and treatment, he does not qualify as defendant’s “attending physician” under the OMMA.

ROOD EX REL. RICHARDS v. Coos County

240 Or. App. 68 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

Medford School Dist. 549C, 232 Or App 38, 46 , 221 P3d 787 (2009) (“When the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action was clearly based on a determination of the merits of the claim * * *, our practice has been to review … a genuine issue of material fact, an affidavit or a declaration of the party’s attorney stating that an unnamed qualified expert has been retained who is available and willing to testify to admissible facts or opinions creating

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.

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.

Denton v. LW Vail Co., Inc.

23 Or. App. 28 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 1975

The only intersecting roads were previously established BLM roads extending northward into BLM properties. The new road crossed these. … Plaintiff contends that he qualified as a constant tres *36 passer in a limited area (sections 334 and 335).

Bresee Homes, Inc. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

227 Or. App. 587 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 22, 2009

The “your work” definition contained in the policy, then, clearly covers work done by plaintiff itself and work done by plaintiffs subcontractors. … It must be plain and unequivocal, either in its terms or by conduct, clearly indicating an intention to renounce a known privilege or power. Id.

Haystack Rock, LLC v. Roberts

343 Or. App. 244 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 4, 2025

The Robertses argue that, notwithstanding those well-established principles, our 2016 decision in Landis dic- tates a different result. … The trial court granted summary judgment for the county on recreational immunity grounds. Id.

Bridgeview Vineyards, Inc. v. Oregon State Land Board

258 Or. App. 351 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 28, 2013

The repairs were to occur during the “in-water” work period established for Sucker Creek. … The standard of review is well-established.

Aguilar v. Badger

304 Or. App. 769 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 17, 2020

Mother and father were not married; paternity was established by father’s acknowledg- ment on K’s birth certificate. Father filed a petition for cus- tody in June 2008. … “And so once I’ve made that determination, then I review the current parenting schedule, as much as I can, for the best interests of the child, who is clearly flourishing where he is in Oakridge.

Huntsinger v. BNSF Railway Co.

286 Or. App. 84 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 7, 2017

Second, Brady establishes that a rail vehicle or train undergoing inspection may still qualify as “in use,” at the very least in situations in which the vehicle would immediately move into service if it passed inspection. … The court observed that “Congressional intent and the case law construing the [LIA] clearly exclude those injuries directly resulting from the inspection, repair, or servicing of railroad equipment located at a maintenance

State v. DEBUISER

249 Or. App. 203 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 4, 2012

As noted, defendant acknowledges that he failed to preserve his argument that the trial court erred in imposing the compensatory fine in the absence of any evidence establishing that the victim suffered a pecuniary loss. … Because the record did not clearly show that the trial court had erred, the Supreme Court concluded that the claimed error did not qualify as plain error. Id. at 170 .

In re the Marriage of Arand

182 Or. App. 368 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 3, 2002

Wife testified that, because husband was late in making mortgage payments, she will not qualify for new loans if forced to sell her home. … The crummy-driving income clearly comes under the rubric of wages.

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Development Commission

69 Or. App. 717 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 19, 1984

If problems of this sort by themselves justified a finding of commitment, it would be impossible to establish lasting boundaries between agricultural and residential areas anywhere, yet establishing those boundaries is basic … These explanations clearly contemplate that the 40-acre parcels will ultimately be taken out of range land use.

State v. A. L. M.

305 Or. App. 389 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 2020

Held: A reasonable juvenile court could conclude, on this record, that the evidence did not demonstrate clearly and convincingly that youth was rehabilitated and did not pose a public-safety threat. … The psychologist reported that youth’s “behavior appears to have been largely impulsive rather than a sexual preference,” and concluded that youth did not qualify for a diagnosis of pedophilia, although “one must rule out

Mears v. Marshall

137 Or. App. 390 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 25, 1995

It is well settled that federal law supersedes conflicting state law, but that Congress’s intent to displace the historic police powers of the states must be clearly manifest. Cipollone v. … She argues that, because of the presumption against preemption of state police power, state tort and common law claims are preempted only if Congress clearly states its intent to do so.

Waggoner v. Husk

337 Or. App. 519 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 29, 2025

First, the defendant must establish that the claim falls within the scope of protected activity under ORS 31.150(2). … If that is established, then, second, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff in the action to establish 1 ORS 31.150 has been amended since the trial court ruled on defendant’s motion.

Hood River County School District v. Fogle

30 Or. App. 699 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 22, 1977

School district shall make every effort to transfer teachers of courses scheduled for discontinuation to other positions for which they are qualified. … ORS 342.905(1) clearly requires that such a statement be included in the notice.

Haystack Rock, LLC v. Roberts

343 Or. App. 244 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 4, 2025

The Robertses argue that, notwithstanding those well-established principles, our 2016 decision in Landis dic- tates a different result. … The trial court granted summary judgment for the county on recreational immunity grounds. Id.

Curtiss v. Department of Corrections

212 Or. App. 42 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 11, 2007

OAR 291-100-0080 provides, in pertinent part: “(1) [The DOC Offender and Sentence Calculation Unit] must receive time served certifications directly from the county sheriff or other qualified certifying authority. … Because paragraph (2)(a) clearly contemplates DOC calculating a “term of confinement” to include time that a person is “confined” before being delivered to DOC’s custody for service of the sentence, we turn to ORS 137.320

State v. Rainoldi

236 Or. App. 129 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 30, 2010

DID THE LEGISLATURE CLEARLY INTEND TO DISPENSE WITH ANY CULPABLE MENTAL STATE REQUIREMENT? … The Supreme Court wrote: “As the Court of Appeals noted, the qualifying phrase ‘that necessarily requires a culpable mental state’ * * * introduces a confusing appearance of circularity in the text.