Case law

McManus v. Auchincloss

271 Or. App. 765 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 17, 2015

Schmaing, 254 Or App 115, 137 , 296 P3d 529 (2012) (concluding that ORS 676.170, which grants civil immunity to a person who supplies a good faith report to a health professional regulatory board, is a statutory source of … However, managerial decisions that might give rise to conventional employment-related claims do not necessarily “qualify as intentional infliction of severe mental distress” unless they are also “the kind of aggravated acts

Hill v. Hill

323 Or. App. 458 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2022

In October 2017, wife hired attorney Williams, a specialist in PERS qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs), to draft an order setting forth the terms of the general judgment’s division of husband’s PERS pension, pursuant … that the supplemental judgment should be set aside because it is inconsistent with the general judgment, which he argues should control and which made no mention of the Money Match portion of husband’s pension and very clearly

Roach v. Kelly Health Care, Inc.

87 Or. App. 495 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 23, 1987

A CNA is not qualified to provide home health aide services, which require a HHA. … Instead, it simply said that the jury could take the rule into account in establishing the standard of care.

Friends of Marion County v. Marion County

233 Or. App. 488 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 2010

However, because the parties accept the proposition that “the Goal 2 requirement for an adequate factual base is equivalent to the requirement for substantial evidence in the whole record,” and petitioners clearly preserved … Goal 11 provides that, “[ljocal [governments shall not allow the establishment or extension of sewer systems outside urban growth boundaries * * * except where the new or extended system is the only practicable alternative

GTE Northwest Inc. v. Oregon Public Utility Commission

179 Or. App. 46 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 2002

He stated that the bill, if adopted, would give counties that power because transportation for the elderly was clearly a matter of county concern. … “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.

Matter of Alexander

26 Or. App. 943 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 1976

In any event, the legislature clearly has rejected the traditional philosophy applied to mental commitment proceedings of 'when in doubt, commit.’ … "A A qualified yes. I have spoken to her and observed her. You indicated that I did not.”

Bird v. Norpac Foods, Inc.

132 Or. App. 349 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 4, 1995

ORS 734.510(4) clearly and comprehensively defines “covered claims.” Conversely, ORS 734.640(1) is a priority statute, limiting OIGA’s obligation to pay “covered claims.” … Moreland qualified as an uninsured motorist under Bird’s policy because his motor vehicle insurer had been declared insolvent.

Johnson and Johnson

309 Or. App. 682 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 10, 2021

The evidence also was sufficient to establish a change of circumstances in Botofan-Miller. … So clearly there is motive to come up with your own perspective and did not take any safety measures around those concerns. That’s concerning to me.”

State v. Vosika

83 Or. App. 298 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 14, 1987

Clearly, the information that her mother was the abuser was important in diagnosing the abuse and treating the child. Sabin had a duty to report the abuse. … Sabin clearly relied on that fact in diagnosing the problem and recommending treatment.

State v. Jayne

173 Or. App. 533 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 25, 2001

Grimsbo, of Intermountain Forensic Laboratories, and qualified him as an expert in the field of urinalysis testing. … Here, by comparison, all of the experts agreed that the urinalysis evidence simply cannot properly be viewed as having a direct correlation to the impairment of the subject at the time of the accident. 7 Clearly, whether

Campos v. Jensen

296 Or. App. 402 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 6, 2019

In particular, defendant contended that under Neumann , 358 Or. 706 , 369 P.3d 1117 , her statements qualified as opinions that *543 were protected by the First Amendment and were, therefore, not actionable. … Read as a whole, the statements clearly reflect [defendant's] personal and subjective impressions and opinions based on her support for Ms. Ferguson." Plaintiff appealed.

Martinez v. Cain

293 Or. App. 434 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 15, 2018

Robbery and aggravated murder clearly are set out in two different statutory provisions, ORS 164.415 and ORS 163.095. … In my view, only one of the court's statements in footnote 4 was clearly correct: Robbery and aggravated murder are set out in two different statutory provisions.

State v. Drew

302 Or. App. 232 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 12, 2020

In par- ticular, if the trial court clearly decided an issue on a basis that the respondent does not defend but which we determine was correct, we will affirm on that basis, notwithstanding the respondent’s lack of defense … In an excess of cau- tion, however, defendant also briefly addresses each alter- native means of establishing a “significant physical injury,” including serious and temporary disfigurement under ORS 137.712(6)(c)(B).4 To

Simi v. LTI Inc. - Lynden Inc.

301 Or. App. 535 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 2019

LTI Inc. - Lynden Inc., 300 Or App 258, 453 P3d 587 (2019) (remanding for reconsideration order rejecting occupational disease claim because of claimant’s failure to establish a contribution from “general work activities” … claims. * * * 4 As relevant, ORS 656.267 provides: “(1) To initiate omitted medical condition claims under ORS 656.262 (6)(d) or new medical condition claims under this section, the worker must clearly

Minor v. SAIF Corp. (In re Minor)

290 Or. App. 537 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 28, 2018

Telew diagnosed major depressive disorder but disagreed that claimant had PTSD, writing: "The worker clearly has a stressful job being a 911 dispatcher, but I saw absolutely no evidence that she developed definitive posttraumatic … In addition, there must be "no indication that, in making its decision, the board relied on evidence that did not qualify as substantial evidence." Jenkins v.

Hill v. US PLYWOOD-CHAMPION COMPANY

12 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 1, 1972

"Under the odd-lot doctrine, once the evidence has established prima facie that Claimant falls in the odd-lot category, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to show that some kind of suitable work is regularly and continuously … All fishermen would qualify for permanent total on this basis. The fact that he skippers the boat but does not haul in crab nets still bespeaks of capabilities inconsistent with a claim of permanent total.

Buck v. ACandS, Inc.

211 Or. App. 324 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 14, 2007

Significantly, however, the court was not called upon to determine whether the defendant, as an employer, should have possessed such knowledge; indeed, the court clearly limited the inquiry to the defendant’s knowledge in … The affidavit or declaration shall be made in good faith based on admissible facts or opinions obtained from a qualified expert who has actually been retained by the attorney who is available and willing to testify and who

In re the Marriage of Tomos

165 Or. App. 82 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 12, 2000

Husband also presented expert testimony that wife could earn between $25,000 and $33,000 per year in one of several professions for which he asserted she was qualified. … The trial court clearly believed that the gap in the parties’ incomes both was real and would likely endure.

Sunset Lake Water Service District v. Remington

45 Or. App. 973 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 1980

There is no reason why a dedicator may not qualify his dedication, and if the dedication is accepted the public takes it subject to the uses reserved. Smith v. Gardner, 12 Or 221 , 6 P 771 , 53 AR 342 (1885). Cf. … As the plaintiff’s statutory arguments establish, the reservation does not strip municipal authorities of their control over the streets. See ORS 758.010(2), supra.

Bank of America, NA v. Wilson

276 Or. App. 238 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 2016

Paragraph (6)(b) of former ORS 86.755, which is central to the dispute in this case, then sets forth an exception to the “tenant at sufferance” rule established by paragraph (6)(a). … See ORS 93.180(1) (“A conveyance or devise of real property, or an interest in real property, that is made to two or more persons: (a) Creates a tenancy in common unless the conveyance or devise clearly and expressly declares