Case law

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. J. M. E.

299 Or. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 18, 2019

The court found that evidence established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that youth committed acts which, had youth been an adult, would have constituted fourth-degree assault. … There’s certainly no guarantee they will ever get that back, although clearly today they’re trying to do so. But even if I order restitution it may take a very long time for that actually to come back.

Stewart v. State

3 Or. App. 620 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 1970

The chains of the cadena are clearly cruel and unusual punishment, but no less so are the conditions alleged in Sweeney and many other cases, including this one. … It is clear that past immunity from judicial intervention has fostered situations which have shocked the conscience of the courts and thus have triggered sometimes reluctant intervention. State of Louisiana ex rel.

Dept. of Human Services v. E. J.

316 Or. App. 537 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 22, 2021

ORS 419A.255(2)(a) references a broad range of materials that can qualify for the privilege. … Here, DHS sought to disclose the mate- rial; regardless of what other situations and actors may or may not fall under the statute’s ambit, DHS clearly does.

Hunter v. Farmers Insurance

135 Or. App. 125 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 21, 1995

In a different atmosphere, I suppose if a person hadn’t been drinking and thinkin’ clearly, he would know such a thing. “Q. So today you’re here testifying that you weren’t thinking clearly at the time? “A. … Defendant * * * has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct of * * * Hoyt qualifies for either of the exclusions in its policy found in paragraph [s] 3. a and 3.b.

State v. Tidyman

30 Or. App. 537 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 17, 1977

There first appears a series of allegations from public records, handwriting analysis and other sources which lead clearly to the inference that defendant owns the Star Theatre under a fictitious name. … Although subsequent cases have qualified that statement, it remains a valid expression of the principle.

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

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 providers, 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

State v. Gonzales

329 Or. App. 155 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 15, 2023

The fact that the caseworker had personal knowledge of the inter- view with S did not obviate the state’s burden to establish that the caseworker made the report “at or near the time” of the interview. … defendant.6 For those reasons, the 6 We acknowledge that both Ferguson (vouching testimony) and Marrington (expert evidence) involved particularly damaging evidence that had been improp- erly admitted and was clearly

Shoulderblade v. Osborn

60 Or. App. 12 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 1982

Foster that he needed a 60-foot easement in order to qualify for an Oregon veterans’ loan and that she had said, “[T]hat didn’t make any difference, that part was all right.” … The documents covering the transfer of the property filed with the title company and the two earnest money agreements clearly show that the parties intended to include an easement in the deed.

City of Eugene v. Roberts

91 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 6, 1988

Defendants maintain that, to qualify for ballot placement, the second question must but does not comply with the statutory requirements for a “measure.” … For the purpose of this section, the conduct of an election includes, but is not limited to, establishing precincts and polling places, preparing ballots and sample ballots, and receiving and processing votes.”

State ex rel. Oregon Pipeline Co. v. Clatsop County

253 Or. App. 138 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 24, 2012

We concluded that the court’s statement in Murphy “clearly implie[d] that a mandamus action under one of the two parallel statutes must have been brought before the belated local decision was made in order for the mandamus … The county has not argued that it has adopted an ordinance setting out what qualifies as “final action.”

State v. Martin

313 Or. App. 578 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 28, 2021

In Johnson, however, we also left open the ques- tion of whether evidence that satisfies a “well-established exception to the hearsay rule, might, standing alone, satisfy due-process-based confrontation demands” without a … Johnson, noting, “In the absence of a more clearly useful standard and because the parties have framed their arguments consis- tently with it, we apply the Ninth Circuit’s balancing test to the record in this

State v. Andrews

174 Or. App. 354 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 23, 2001

Blanton, 31 Or App 327, 331 , 570 P2d 411 (1977) (noting that statutory language “may add some contusion to our analysis”), aff 'd 284 Or 591, 595 , 588 P2d 28 (1978) (“the qualifying phrase ‘that necessarily requires a culpable … See Cho, 297 Or at 201 (“The mere enactment of a crime without an expressly required culpable mental state is insufficient to establish such a clear indication.”).

Hale v. Belleque

255 Or. App. 653 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 20, 2013

Unlike the state, we do not treat that allegation as one of inadequacy of counsel, as it clearly relates to a ruling of the court. … Rather, petitioner contends, trial counsel asserted that the state’s disparate treatment of petitioner and Susbauer in plea negotiations had violated the equal privileges and immunities clause in Article I, section 20, of

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee of the University of Oregon

102 Or. App. 276 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 27, 1990

PETA argues that, under that language, it clearly has standing, because it participated, advocated its position and lost. … PETA qualifies as a person under ORS 183.310(7): “ ‘Person’ means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental subdivision or public or private organization of any character other than an agency.”

In re the Dissolution of the Marriage of Hastings

17 Or. App. 548 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 1974

Hastings in contempt for “wilfully withholding * * * [Robert] beyond the established visitation period” and directed “that a warrant should issue for her arrest.” … But the Polaroid exhibits before Judge Dahl back in March clearly had multiple blows. «* * * * * “* * * The child had been spanked and spanked way too hard.

Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund v. Port of Portland

286 Or. App. 447 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 28, 2017

the Supreme Court have decided whether a governmental policy adopted by an executive officer that only affects contractual relationships of that government, and does not enact or implement a general rule of civil conduct, qualifies … Does the policy fall within a well-established historical exception?

Simpson v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

237 Or. App. 661 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 2010

The record before the board established that petitioner had a 1985 California conviction of two counts of the crime of lewd act with a child. … Although petitioner’s crime would not qualify for imposition of those lifetime conditions under that provision, part of his prior sex offense was committed while the victim was under age 12.

State v. Efimoff

346 Or. App. 402 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 7, 2026

Once there is case law establishing the required mental state for an element, it becomes plain error not to have instructed the jury in that manner—even if the case was tried before the new case law published, as we decide … That is, McKinney/Shiffer clearly holds that merely raising the mental-state issue in the trial court is not enough to preserve for appeal an argument that a specific mental state is required—and does so by reference to the