Case law

Arms v. SAIF Corp.

268 Or. App. 761 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 4, 2015

claimant conceded that the C6-7 degeneration was not itself a compensable consequential condition but maintained that the proposed surgery was compensable as a medical service under ORS 656.225. 1 SAIF responded that “this is clearly … SAIF notes that claimant’s C6-7 condition was not diagnosed or treated before the 2003 work injury, and it asserts that nothing in the record establishes that the condition was arthritic.

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.

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas County

309 Or. App. 499 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 3, 2021

LUBA affirmed a hearings officer’s determinations that the applicant would qualify as the “operator” of the proposed home occupation and that no more than five persons would be employed on the site of the home occu- pation … and more specifically the ambi- guity in ORS 215.448(1)(b) is limited to determining how to count persons who are employed part-time on the site, since any employee who is employed full-time on the site would clearly

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.”

Pacific Western Co. v. Lincoln County

166 Or. App. 484 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 12, 2000

The statute REQUIRES that the property right be recorded, and the property right that is recorded be one that establishes access. This requirement is more than mere ownership. … Conversely, petitioners’ construction answers the question clearly and grammatically: Consent is required when vacation “would deprive an owner” of access necessary for the exercise of a recorded property right.

WSB INVESTMENTS, LLC v. Pronghorn Development Co.

269 Or. App. 342 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 25, 2015

Presented with evidence that a director acted in a way that was clearly prohibited by the governing documents, or failed to take an action that was clearly required by the governing documents, a factfinder could find not … ORS 65.369 limits the civil liability of “qualified directors,” including the uncompensated directors of certain nonprofit homeowners associations. ORS 65.369(3)(d).

Rogue Valley Sewer Services v. City of Phoenix

262 Or. App. 183 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 9, 2014

The court concluded that the city’s property was “clearly exempt from taxation under the statute.” Id. at 473 . … RVS, as a sanitary authority, qualifies as a “municipality” for purposes of the definition of “public utility” in ORS chapter 757.

Bingham v. Employment Department

163 Or. App. 381 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 1999

Claimant’s position, as we understand it, is that the record establishes that Roscoe merely “requested” the written statement and that such a request comported with the well-established practice of not requiring written statements … That entitlement may, in appropriate cases, be limited or qualified by established policy, pattern, or practice.

Doss v. Farmers Ins. Co.

350 Or. App. 831 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 24, 2026

As we explained in Galfano, that definition requires that a ruling must qualify initially as a “judgment” and additionally as a “supplemental judg- ment.” 196 Or App at 432. … Rather, ORCP 68 C(5)(b)(i) provides that such a ruling must be entered as a judgment. 5 Defendant argues that plaintiff “clearly waived” any objection to the form of the February 10, 2023, order by not objecting

Kahn v. Pony Express Courier Corp.

173 Or. App. 127 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 14, 2001

statutes “designate certain information as confidential * * * without stating that such information is immune from judicially compelled disclosure” (emphasis added)). … Moreover, even assuming that the privilege is qualified by the exceptions provided in ORS 419A.255(2) and (3), by their terms, none of those exceptions was applicable here.

State v. Moore

229 Or. App. 255 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 1, 2009

Here, even more clearly, defendant was not free to leave while he was handcuffed and in the back of the police car while he was being questioned. … Thus, under McGinnis , defendant’s testimony at trial cannot be used to establish “harmless error” with regard to the illegally obtained evidence.

State v. Sassarini

300 Or. App. 106 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 2019

Those determinations about the parties’ pre- trial communications are not clearly against the evidence and reason. Cf. Forsi v. … Sassarini copies and qualify as “duplicates” of what appeared on the memory card, and we do not understand defendant to con- tend otherwise on appeal.

Madden v. SAIF Corp.

64 Or. App. 820 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 5, 1983

The administrative rules established a procedure which required that medical services be paid pending the complaint until such time as the medical director should rule that sanctions should be imposed. … The Board was clearly correct in holding that SAIF erred in refusing to pay the medical bills and in ordering SAIF to pay them.

Greene v. Homesales, Inc.

257 Or. App. 817 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 7, 2013

Plaintiff sought a declaration of his rights under the “Note and Deed of Trust material to this case” and any other agreements or contracts that defendants might rely upon, and notice as to which parties might “qualify as … “Without that being clearly revealed and declared,” plaintiff argued, “there was no default and therefore no lawful foreclosure.”

Matthew v. Juras

16 Or. App. 524 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 4, 1974

He asserts that the evidence establishes he is a disabled person within the statute. … A similar problem concerning who might, within constitutional standards, be qualified in an administrative proceeeding to serve as a hearing officer was considered in Morrissey v.

Smith v. Dean Vincent, Inc.

47 Or. App. 887 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 18, 1980

The 30-day period during which buyer could cure a default after notice is nothing more than a grace period (whether it be under the pledge or substituted mortgage) and "merely establishes an orderly procedure for enforcement … 305 of the Uniform Commercial Code (ORS 79.3050) explains: "Possession may be by the secured party himself or by an agent on his behalf: it is of course clear, however, that the debtor or a person controlled by him cannot qualify

State v. Bracken

341 Or. App. 318 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 18, 2025

Thus, defendant argues that his actions qualified as passive resistance and that the court erred in denying his MJOA. … 162.315(2)(c) (“ ‘Resists’ means the use or threatened use of violence, phys- ical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person and includes, but is not lim- ited to, behavior clearly

State v. Bracken

341 Or. App. 318 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 18, 2025

Thus, defendant argues that his actions qualified as passive resistance and that the court erred in denying his MJOA. … ORS 162.315(2) (c) (“ ‘Resists’ means the use or threatened use of violence, physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person and includes, but is not limited to, behavior clearly

State v. Tucker

109 Or. App. 519 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 13, 1991

She argues that the testimony did not qualify under either of the two theories for its reception: as a declaration against penal interest or as a statement of a co-conspirator. We need address only the first theory. … A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.”

Jones v. Board of Parole

350 Or. App. 432 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 10, 2026

Petitioner contends that the board violated his due process right to notice and the opportunity for a fair hearing by not clearly advising him about his pre-hearing decisions and the hearing process that it intended to use … Similar to the federal equal protection provision, Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution prohib- its laws “granting to any citizen or class of citizens priv- ileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms,