Case law

STATE EX REL. JUV. DEPT. OF MULTNOMAH v. Wade

19 Or. App. 314 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 28, 1974

This exclusive interest of the state is clearly a source of potential conflict which may prevent the district attorney — whose client in these proceedings is primarily the state — from providing a child with the effective … If anything, the provisions added to the statute' in 1973 have served to make it more rather than less immune to constitutional challenge, as they have clarified to some degree the standard against which a parent’s “conduct

Nulph v. Board of Parole

279 Or. App. 652 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 27, 2016

OR-OSHA, 356 Or at 599 ; Bergerson, 341 Or at 416 (where the agency failed to exercise its discretion “remand [was] necessary to allow the [agency] to complete the legislative meaning of the [delegative] term ‘clearly an … The board also has not defined that term through rulemaking and did not reference any previous orders in which it defined the term or established criteria to determine whether a prisoner has established “reasonable cause”

State v. Boundy

115 Or. App. 638 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 21, 1992

However her brief clearly argues that the police had no legal basis for searching her purse and seizing the bill. I cannot join in the majority’s refusal to address that issue. State v. … Her presence in the car alone could not establish probable cause. See State v. Taylor, supra, 62 Or App at 590 .

Willamina Education Ass'n v. Willamina School District 30J

50 Or. App. 195 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 1981

It is agreed, therefore, that the superintendent shall conduct in conjuction [sic] with the IED, annually, an active search to establish a list of the most qualified substitutes available and shall continue to supplement … previously the parties have agreed to accept such awards as final and binding upon them.’ # * * * "For the above reasons, this Board holds that in this case and future cases it will enforce an arbitration award unless it is clearly

Madrigal-Estrella v. State of Oregon

303 Or. App. 124 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 18, 2020

Informing petitioner only that he “may” be deported “is unhelpful at best and would not explain the immigration consequences clearly.” … There, we concluded that a post-conviction petitioner had failed to establish that the crime to which he pleaded guilty was clearly an “aggravated felony” under 8 USC § 1101(43), subjecting him to specific immigration consequences

State v. Kyger

305 Or. App. 548 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 22, 2020

To qualify as “a substantial step toward commission of the crime, the ‘defendant’s conduct must (1) advance the crimi- nal purpose charged and (2) provide some verification of the existence of that purpose.’ ” State v. … the actor’s personality to society at large. “* * * * * “The Model Penal Code comment on situations of this kind is well expressed as follows: “ ‘In all of these cases (1) criminal purpose has been clearly

Follansbee v. Ooi

335 Or. App. 305 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 2, 2024

Our case law establishes two types of prejudice analyses for such a determination. … On the other hand, defendants argue that M&B will be prejudiced by the appeal proceed- ing without it, they state that “M&B clearly has legal rights that will be affected by Plaintiffs’ cross-appeal” and that “[plaintiffs

State v. Couch

196 Or. App. 665 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2004

Property qualified and possessory a man may have in those *675 which are ferae naturae; * * * but in those which are ferae naturae, and by industry are made tame, a man hath but a qualified property in them, sail., so long … Thus, when ORS 498.002 declares that “[w]ildlife is the property of the state,” we may understand that the reference to “wildlife” fairly clearly is to animals ferae naturae over which the state has sovereignty, subject to

State v. Davis

269 Or. App. 532 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 11, 2015

Defendant stipulated to the results from the rape kit that conclusively established his DNA from spermatozoa. … “OEC 401 establishes a ‘very low threshold’ for the admission of evidence; evidence is relevant so long as it increases or decreases, even slightly, the probability of the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the

Delta Logistics, Inc. v. Employment Department Tax Section

279 Or. App. 498 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 20, 2016

Sproul, 226 Or at 403 (“The mere fact that the parties describe an instrument as a lease does not conclusively establish the existence of a leasehold interest.”); Thomas, 225 Or at 552 . See Strandholm v. … “(d) Compensation to be specified — The amount to be paid by the authorized carrier for equipment and driver’s services shall be clearly stated on the face of the lease or in an addendum which is attached to the lease. *

Thunderbird Motel, Inc. v. City of Portland

40 Or. App. 697 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 18, 1979

Under the tests established in Carruthers and Miles , we conclude that there was no violation of Article XI, section 9 here. … In his opinion on the motion for summary judgment, the trial judge stated: "* * * Clearly the Commission could not participate in the construction of the hotel.

State v. Donovan

243 Or. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 25, 2011

Statutes having the same ‘characteristics’ have the same ‘trait[s], qualifies], or properties]’; they need not be identical in every detail. … That is sufficient, under our prior interpretations of ORS 813.215(1) and ORS 813.010(5), to establish that VTL section 1192 is a statutory counterpart to ORS 813.010.

State v. Wallace

321 Or. App. 704 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 14, 2022

J clearly had the ability to refuse to do things that defendant asked her to do. … Rather, the state must establish “the complainant’s requisite, particularized inability to under- stand or consent to sexual relations.”

State v. Perez-Salas

312 Or. App. 693 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 30, 2021

physical possessions, or any other items that the defendant pos- sessed that were in [B’s] room, and that he gained access to her room, allegedly, by forcing the door open, breaking the doorjamb, would indicate clearly … The state responds, as it did at trial, that B’s bed- room was a “rented room,” qualifying as a separate unit or building under the burglary statutes, see ORS 164.205(1), and, thus, a dwelling, see ORS 164.205(2).3 The state

Montgomery v. Board of Education

188 Or. App. 63 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 5, 2003

OSAA stated that, if PAA qualified for a Saturday game that conflicted with its Sabbath and refused to play, it would have to forfeit that game. … In fact, PAA qualified for, and won, the championship game, which began after sundown on Saturday. As a result, no actual conflict occurred.

State v. Jeffery

329 Or. App. 380 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 6, 2023

Jeffery of a child, and there are laws establishing that children should be treated more leniently than adults. Id. at 623-26. … Clearly, the court considered that evidence because defendant relied on it at the sentencing hearing.

Schaaf v. Eugene School District No. 4J

19 Or. App. 838 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 23, 1974

School districts shall make every effort to transfer teachers of courses scheduled for discontinuance to other positions for which they are qualified. … Clearly the instructors would be entitled to a hearing under the express terms of the Fair Dismissal Law as amended in 1973.

IBEW Local 89 v. Wallan

326 Or. App. 796 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2023

harm can qualify as a “personal stake” or as having a legal effect on the individual. … Petitioners do not have standing to bring this action based on the alleged institutional injuries.8 We thus turn to the few allegations in the affida- vits that are not clearly institutional injuries.

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Campbell

178 Or. App. 271 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 5, 2001

The juvenile court undoubtedly qualifies as a sending agency under that description. … We note that there is no dispute in this case that the type of guardianship established by the court pursuant to ORS 419B.370 constitutes “foster care” for purposes of Article 111(a) of the compact. ORS 417.200.

Department of Human Services v. E. L. G.

270 Or. App. 308 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 8, 2015

In response, DHS argues that the juvenile court’s assertion of jurisdiction was not clearly erroneous because there was some evidence in the record to support the juvenile court’s implicit factual finding that C’s welfare … However, even if the asserted error qualifies as “plain error,” we must determine whether to exercise our discretion to reach the error and correct it. Ailes v.