Case law

City of Eugene v. Nalven

152 Or. App. 720 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 25, 1998

Defendant contends that the City cannot compel an extraterritorial connection without providing notice to the affected property owner, holding hearings and establishing the inadequacy of her current system. … That exception to the general rule has been qualified further by a requirement that any grant of extramural authority be “clearly expressed.” As the Supreme Court explained in Richards et al v.

Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Watkins

224 Or. App. 599 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 2008

Our interpretation is consistent with the text of the first sentence of ORS 656.236(l)(a), in which the term “except for medical services” clearly modifies the entire antecedent, “any or all matters regarding a claim.” … Neither any party nor DCBS argues that the CDA otherwise establishes that claimant has reserved any right to attorney fees other than that under the default rules established in ORS 656.236(1)(a).

Hofer v. OHSU

319 Or. App. 603 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 2022

recognizes the defenses of qualified privilege and absolute privilege in defamation claims. … Plaintiff relies on ORS 192.553(1)6 in support of her contention that “medical records clearly qualify as a legally protected interest.”

State v. Pirtle

255 Or. App. 195 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 13, 2013

And so[,] in terms of the rationale for the automobile exception, at least from my perspective, it applies in this situation because it clearly is not a case where, for instance, the vehicle parked, remained parked.” … In particular, defendant emphasizes the temporal requisites of the automobile exception, which the Supreme Court unambiguously ratified in Kurokawa-Lasciak: “[T]o qualify for the automobile exception, the vehicle that the

Shields v. Villareal

177 Or. App. 687 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 31, 2001

Matthews, 129 NM 134 , 2 P3d 871, 878 , rev den 129 NM 207 (2000) (requiring “substantial evidence” that the defendant had “clearly and unequivocally abandoned the easement”). 4 Although the court found that, “on the face … of it, both witnesses have impressed the court and seem to be even reasonable people,” the court immediately qualified that observation by finding that, “[o]n balance, it makes more sense to me to think that the defendant

Piller and Piller

318 Or. App. 836 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 6, 2022

The trial court issued a dissolution judgment awarding wife half the value of husband’s PERS member’s account and directed wife to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to the court. … It may be, as wife argues, that the prem- ises of husband’s argument could have been stated more clearly.

Boyd v. Essin

170 Or. App. 509 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 18, 2000

Respondent clearly came within petitioner’s visual presence when she saw him drive by her home. See State v. … In determining whether respondent’s act qualifies as a contact, we look initially to the ordinary understanding of that term. State v. K.P., 324 Or 1 , 7-8, 921 P2d 380 (1996).

Campbell v. State

254 Or. App. 726 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2013

Generally, the sentence of an inmate who qualifies for good-time credit is adjusted by deducting a certain number of days from the sentence imposed by the sentencing court. Id,.; see also Neal v. … correct that, under Shelby, he was entitled to “good time” for certain dates, we would not agree with his ultimate conclusion that he would have reached his “good-time” date before he was *735 paroled, because plaintiff clearly

State v. Acker

175 Or. App. 145 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 5, 2001

Defendant first argues that the DA’s office’s policy for plea negotiations violates the equal privileges and immunities clause because it allows for disparate treatment of individuals based on an impermissible criterion—the … The answer, we believe, is a qualified “no,” under the rationale of McDonnell II.

Alexander v. State

283 Or. App. 582 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 1, 2017

Consequently, plaintiff failed to establish that there was a genuine issue of fact as to economic damages. … In applying that standard, we uphold the trial court’s decision unless it exercises its discretion in a manner that is unjustified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence. Quillen v.

Eatherly v. Oregon State Correctional Institution

24 Or. App. 41 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 12, 1976

The test factors were carefully conceived and clearly measurable against objective standards of performance. … Rule 42-500: "When a rating of experience and training forms all or a part of a test, the administrator shall develop procedures for the evaluation of those factors that will serve to assist in the selection of the best qualified

State v. Harberts

109 Or. App. 533 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 13, 1991

The court held in Green that, although the state could not introduce evidence concerning a polygraph examination either to establish whether a defendant was telling the truth or to establish the voluntariness of a confession … The decision clearly means that the sanitized evidence is admissible, regardless of what the defendant might do or not do in response.

Spurger v. SAIF Corp.

266 Or. App. 183 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 8, 2014

Wong did not clearly state claimant was significantly limited in repetitive use. In response to the request for clarification, Dr. … However, that recital tells us, the reviewing court, nothing about why the board considered the described limitations not “significant[]” enough to qualify for an impairment value under OAR 436-035-0019.

State v. Cartwright

173 Or. App. 59 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 14, 2001

Pelham, 136 Or App 336, 344-45 , 901 P2d 972 (1995), rev den 323 Or 264 (1996), or otherwise “demonstrably relevant” and with established “bearing” on the criminal case. Nixon, 418 US at 712-13 . … , not absolute, immunity.

Moore v. Portland Public Schools

328 Or. App. 391 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2023

The legislature’s express but narrow abrogation of the common-law rule of parental immunity for parents with legal custody is inconsistent with plaintiffs’ expansive view of vicarious liability for a school district. … We conclude that a plaintiff alleging discrimination because of sex pro- hibited by ORS 659A.030(1)(b) need not establish that the employer only discriminated against members of the plain- tiff’s sex in order to establish

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.

Shotgun Creek Ranch, LLC v. Crook County

219 Or. App. 375 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 16, 2008

In other words, what was the legislature’s intention in changing a statute that clearly authorized county governing bodies to legalize roads whose status as county roads was dubious, into a statute that appeared to authorize … But see ORS 368.211 (requiring county governing body to provide limited compensation to qualified applicants).

Trivoli v. Multnomah County Rural Fire Protection District No. 10

74 Or. App. 550 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 17, 1985

Thus, in order to establish a violation of his right to due process of law, plaintiff has to demonstrate that some statute, rule or contract confers that property interest. … It was clearly not the intent of the Commission, nor could it have been plaintiffs reasonable expectation, that *556 he would receive tenure at the time he was hired.

Matter of Marriage of Rykert

146 Or. App. 537 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 26, 1997

Clearly, *542 husband was able to achieve an advantageous economic position due, at least in part, to wife’s efforts. … However, ORS 107.105(2) does not limit consideration of tax consequences only to qualified retirement plans.

State v. Kurtz

233 Or. App. 573 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 17, 2010

Any designation of Davino under tribal law is insufficient to qualify him as a “peace officer” under ORS 161.015(4). … which “law enforcement units” can determine whether “public safety personnel meet minimum standards or have minimum training,” and to “certify * * * public safety personnel * * * as being qualified under the rules established