Case law

State v. Cuevas

263 Or. App. 94 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 21, 2014

Applying that standard, we have found a similar sentencing error to be harmless where “the testimony of the victim * * * clearly established that each of the offenses was a separate incident; that is, they each occurred at … The uncontradicted testimony at trial establishes that Counts 3 and 7, and Counts 9 and 10, were all separate *115 criminal episodes.

State v. Decleve

299 Or. App. 528 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 25, 2019

To qualify for plain-error review under ORAP 5.45, an error must be: (1) an error of law; (2) obvious and not reasonably in dispute; and (3) apparent on the record with- out requiring an appellate court to choose among competing … Thus, in the state’s view, because the record does not clearly demonstrate that the trial court had to use the shift-to-I rule in the first place, it is not plain error for the trial court to fail to use the 200-percent rule

Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State

150 Or. App. 106 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 17, 1997

legislative intent is unclear after examining text and context, then, and only then, may the court consider legislative history). 27 Because we reject plaintiffs civil rights claims on their merits, we do not address the issue of qualified … immunity. 28 For example, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment included a “stipulation” that plaintiff “made a timely request for an administrative hearing upon receipt of the notice of violation regarding the

Fox v. Collins

238 Or. App. 240 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 2010

Second, according to defendants, “[t]he record establishes as a matter of law that defendant did not waive the statute of limitations. … Such a waiver “must be plain and unequivocal, either in its terms or by conduct, clearly indicating an intention to renounce a known privilege or power.” Id.

Kidder v. Olsen

176 Or. App. 457 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 12, 2001

Gartin, in response, admitted each of those allegations but qualified her admission by arguing that plaintiff was estopped from relying on her failure to close or provide tender. … Thus, Measure 50 established a valuation scheme under which a particular property’s tax-assessed value might not mirror its fair market value.

State v. Cunningham

179 Or. App. 359 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 6, 2002

The record further establishes that the victim made the first telephone call to her mother at 7:10 p.m., and that, at that time, she was still highly upset by defendant’s call. … Clearly, it does apply to appellate review of the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal (or directed verdict in civil actions).

Wilson v. WALLUSKI WESTERN LTD.

226 Or. App. 155 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 25, 2009

Wideman, 203 Or App 359, 364 , 124 P3d 1271 (2005) (preservation rules are meant to ensure “that the position of a party is presented clearly to the trial court and that parties are not taken by surprise, misled, or denied … At trial, the parties stipulated to the following facts: “(1) at all material times since his accident on April 6th, 2004, Plaintiff Boyd Wilson was and is a qualified individual with a disability under [the] Americans with

Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission

236 Or. App. 479 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 9, 2010

Instead, as Friends A131299 establishes, “new information” includes information that the commission simply has not considered before. 218 Or App at 245-46. … In enacting that scheme, Congress clearly envisioned that the management plan would evolve as circumstances and conditions changed.

State v. Sparks

228 Or. App. 163 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 29, 2009

The inventory, then, was beyond the authority established by the policy and was therefore invalid. State v. Atkinson, 298 Or 1 , 688 P2d 832 (1984). … Miller, 196 Or App 354, 361-62 , 103 P3d 112 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 488 (2005), and an “attempted transfer” qualifies as “delivery” under ORS 475.005(8) (“delivery” is “actual, constructive or attempted transfer”).

Grabhorn, Inc. v. Washington County

255 Or. App. 369 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 21, 2013

A decision about whether Grabhorn’s current operation is permitted clearly involves the “application” of a “land use regulation,” and therefore would appear to qualify as a “land use decision” subject to LUBA’s exclusive … Rather, the county determined that the 1991 LUCS was legally insufficient to establish that compatibility.

In Re Harrell

801 P.2d 852 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 21, 1990

If and when that happens, his ability to qualify for public assistance will be severely limited. … Clearly, the statute does not go that far.

State Ex Rel. Department of Human Services v. J. L. N.

212 Or. App. 266 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 25, 2007

Although that fact by itself does not establish neglect under ORS 419B.506, see State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. … Squiers, 203 Or App 774, 789 , 126 P3d 758 (2006), it is relevant conduct under ORS 419B.504 because it is clearly detrimental to the children.

City of Scappoose v. Public Utility Commission

142 Or. App. 156 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 10, 1996

PUC has established two methods by which an exchange can demonstrate EAS eligibility. … In the same orders, PUC decided that the City of Newberg and certain others did qualify for inclusion in the Portland EAS region.

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 P.3d 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 … 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 a question of fact, will be deemed sufficient to controvert

Scharfstein v. BP W. Coast Prods., LLC

292 Or. App. 69 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 31, 2018

Moreover, in the context of consumer purchases, every transaction involves a payment method, and a payment method is not sufficiently distinct from the purchase of a good or service to qualify as a separate service. … As noted, OAR 137-020-0150(3)(d)(A) requires that all "conditions" be "clearly" displayed on the service station's street sign.

SAIF Corp. v. Henwood

176 Or. App. 431 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 5, 2001

The statute uses the phrase “employment conditions” without qualifiers. Employer’s reading would require insertion of the word “current” into the statute before “employment conditions.” … That statute, in turn, establishes procedures for filing aggravation claims, and it clearly does not encompass claims based on the worsening of diseases incurred in out-of-state employment.

City of Corvallis v. State of Oregon

304 Or. App. 171 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 13, 2020

Thus, in Oregon, prior to 1906, the state retained all power over local affairs and had the exclu- sive authority to adopt and amend city charters, to establish and alter municipal boundaries, and to grant and remove legislative … 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

Green v. Douglas County

245 Or. App. 430 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 8, 2011

Those contentions largely related to the application of ORS 215.448(1), which provides that “[t]he governing body of a county or its designate may allow, subject to the approval of the governing body or its designate, the establishment … That statute requires LUBA to affirm a land use decision, notwithstanding insufficient findings, if “the parties identify relevant evidence in the record which clearly supports the decision.”

State v. Garlinghouse

323 Or. App. 640 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 11, 2023

There are also situations where a jury clearly is equally qualified without help from opinion testimony such as offered here. … It is the area between the clearly qualified and the clearly unqualified where the trial judge should be granted a cer- tain latitude of decision in excluding or receiving expert opinion testimony.”

Farmers Insurance Co. v. Aranda

279 Or. App. 36 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 2016

Employer, in its third assignment of error, also posits that (1) claimant failed to establish that he clearly requested formal written acceptance of his cervical radiculopathy condition, as required by ORS 656.267(1) and … That rule does not qualify the obligation to identify issues as dependent on which party has the burden of production.