Case law

Rock v. Francis

133 Or. App. 80 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 15, 1995

Past profits may be established, and the value of the good will estimated therefrom as a basis, subject to being reduced by a showing of a depression in trade or other circumstances that would tend to make the business less … There is, however, testimony that Kysar kept the two types of damages clearly distinct. We find no abuse of discretion. Affirmed.

State v. Page

330 Or. App. 672 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 14, 2024

M tes- tified that the color of the fresh paint was close, but clearly darker, than the existing paint. … The expense incurred to paint the undamaged walls qualifies as economic damages and the trial court did not err when it included that cost in restitution.

Friends of Yamhill County, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners

237 Or. App. 149 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 1, 2010

That vesting determination qualified the property as subject to special zoning allowances under a law recently adopted by the voters. … Thus, all qualified section 5(3) claimants have made expenditures that are particular to the waived use.

Lane County v. Land Conservation & Development Commission

138 Or. App. 635 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 24, 1996

The 1994 LCDC rules provide for the classification of qualifying agricultural land as “high-value farmland.” OAR 660-33-020(8). Uses on high-value farmland are limited to those specified by rule. OAR 660-33-090. … For example, LCDC relies on statements of Senator Cohen, who expressed the opinion that the new law “clearly does not interfere nor get in the way, and we wouldn’t expect [LCDC] to necessarily abolish [its] rules on high-value

State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Sauer

189 Or. App. 78 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 30, 2003

lack of reliability or corroboration. 1 The state concedes that it provided notice of its intent to rely on C’s hearsay statements only 10 days before trial, but it contends that its failure to meet the statutory deadline qualifies … We note that one hearsay statement cannot be used to provide corroboration for or indicate the reliability of other hearsay statements; the legislature clearly intended that a defendant not be convicted (or a juvenile found

State Ex Rel. Engweiler v. Powers

232 Or. App. 214 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 25, 2009

The defendant had argued to the trial court that his skateboard did not qualify because vehicles are something that one drives, and one does not drive a skateboard. … The parties clearly put before the trial court the meaning of ORS 144.120(1)(a) (1989).

State v. Thomas

53 Or. App. 375 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 3, 1981

She testified that she remembered clearly that it was on a Thursday and that it must have been on the 28th because it was near the end of the month. … Superficially, at least, a substantial benefit was conferred upon defendant when the court allowed the alibi witness to testify, even though the state was allowed to call defense counsel to establish the prior inconsistent

State v. Cassidy

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 22, 2024

As defendant saw it, the legislature “clearly meant to protect businesses like hotels and cab services from people evading payment because they are commercial and held open to the public for the purpose of generating income … As the state sees it, a “vacation rental used to generate profit” qualifies as a “business facility” under ORS 164.125(1)(b).

Devin Oil Co. v. Morrow County

275 Or. App. 799 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 2015

A decision to extend that very same approval, notwithstanding the lack of any extension language in MCZO 4.165(C), clearly adversely affects an interest personal to [petitioner].” (Citation omitted.) … Thus, Love’s and the county argue that the economic effects of the proposed development do not qualify petitioner as “adversely affected” under ORS 197.830(3).

In Re Mathis

537 P.2d 148 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 23, 1975

This psychiatric therapy was given by an experienced doctor who appears to be eminently qualified in his field. The immediate and actual cause of the last runaway is not apparent. … Like Cardiel , this, too, was clearly "a one time thing."

Karjalainen v. Curtis Johnston & Pennywise, Inc.

208 Or. App. 674 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 18, 2006

What the parties did dispute was whether claimant’s degenerative disc disease qualifies as “arthritis or an *678 arthritic condition.” … It is clearly an “inexact” term. Its meaning is not so precise as to require no interpretation at all; nor is it a term of delegation.

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. State

193 Or. App. 185 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 28, 2004

To the extent that it does business in Oregon and qualifies as a farm vehicle, it will pay the fuel tax instead of the weight-mile tax. … The fuel tax satisfies the tests that the Court established in Complete Auto Transit, Inc.

Dickinson v. Davis

26 Or. App. 285 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 2, 1976

Although the exact details of the arrangement are unclear, it appears that Woolwine established a parts division which was to lease trucks from Dickinson for $126 per month. … The word "modify” has been defined by our Supreme Court as follows: "* * * In a general sense, to modify means to change or vary, to qualify or reduce * * State v. Lawrence, 12 Or 297 , 7 P 116 (1885).

State v. George

287 Or. App. 312 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 23, 2017

“Precisely what suffices to ‘present [ ] clearly’ a particular position, for preservation purposes, is not something that can be explained by a neat verbal formula. … For that argument, defendant relies on wording in Kurokawa-Lasciak in which the court stated that, “to qualify for the automobile exception, the vehicle that the police search must be mobile at the time that police encounter

Miller v. Agripac, Inc.

322 Or. App. 202 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 5, 2022

“In truth the distinction must be clearly explained to the jury because we have held that contributory negligence is a defense in an action for gross negligence but is not a defense in an action for wanton misconduct.” … It fol- lows, under well-established case law, that the defense of comparative fault is unavailable to defendant. E.

State v. Riley

195 Or. App. 377 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 22, 2004

Clearly, the asserted error—counting defendant’s juvenile adjudication as part of his criminal history so as to lengthen his sentence—is purely legal, nor does addressing it require us to look beyond the record. … That split in the circuits by itself establishes that the trial court’s use of defendant’s juvenile adjudication in calculating his sentence was not obviously and indisputably error.

Friends of Eugene v. City of Eugene

196 Or. App. 771 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2004

Taylor, 4 American Land Planning Law § 79:8 (2003) (listing elements of ordinance definitions of‘accessory use’ as requiring that the use be related to the principal use, be ‘subordinate and clearly incidental to the principal … In some circumstances, a proposed development may qualify as an auxiliary use under the Metro Plan. In other circumstances, however, the proposed development may not qualify.

State v. Davis

291 Or. App. 146 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 4, 2018

The inference is clearly there. That's relevant. That's consciousness of some guilt on his part. It is relevant. The State-it's a balancing test. The State is in need of the evidence. … context for defendant's statements or to establish their effect on defendant. 3 We agree with the state that it is immaterial whether the victim's statements qualify as adoptive admissions under OEC 801(4)(b)(B), because

Wood v. Taylor

307 Or. App. 688 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 2, 2020

Taylor belief” and hostility elements together, we concluded that “the undisputed evidence establishe[d] clearly and convinc- ingly that defendants and their predecessor, James, had an ‘honest belief’ that the disputed strip … Engelson, the defendants claimed adverse possession of land adjacent to their deeded property, but the testimony of one of the defendants “clearly establishe[d] that she had conscious doubt as to where the property line was

State v. McHenry

161 Or. App. 606 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 7, 1999

It may establish the relevance of expert testimony under OEC 401. 5 It may establish the extent to which the relevance is outweighed by unfair prejudice in admitting the evidence under OEC 403. 6 And it may establish the … We cannot say that the court’s ruling in this case is clearly against reason and evidence, and, therefore, an abuse of discretion. See Casciato v. Oregon Liquor Control Com., 181 Or 707, 717 , 185 P2d 246 (1947).