Case law

Miller v. Multnomah County

153 Or. App. 30 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 18, 1998

The text of ORS 197.835(10)(a)(B), viewed in its context, clearly includes only county actions that are taken with the deliberate design of avoiding the requirements of ORS 215.428. … ORS 215.750(l)(c) provides: “In western Oregon, a governing body of a county or its designate may allow the establishment of a single-family dwelling on a lot or parcel located within a forest zone if the lot or parcel is

State v. Nelson

224 Or. App. 193 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 3, 2008

See Crawford, 541 US at 59 n 9 (“The Clause also does not bar the use of *199 testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.” (citing Street, 471 US at 414 )). … court’s instructions demonstrate that, in finding defendant guilty of Counts 4 and 7, the jury necessarily found that those two crimes did not arise out of the same continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct — thus qualifying

Kahn v. Weldin

60 Or. App. 365 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 24, 1982

Kirsten failed to establish that as a matter of law, it was entitled to indemnity. … On April 1, 1977, after Columbia and American had moved to the new facility, they were clearly “operating within the new plant.”

Hardegger v. Amsberry

305 Or. App. 726 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 12, 2020

Wainright, 372 US 335, 83 S Ct 792, 9 L Ed 2d 799 (1963), as the kind of rule that would qualify.” Miller v. Lampert, 340 Or 1, 9, 125 P3d 1260 (2006). … New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), would qualify. 336 Or at 381.

Samuels v. Hubbard

71 Or. App. 481 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 19, 1984

Oregon has not yet clearly decided the issue. In State Highway Com. v. Superbilt Mfg. … Even those federal cases which hold that a party had a right to intervene do little more than indicate that a similarly situated party would qualify for permissive intervention under Oregon law.

Moore v. Portland Public Schools

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2023

The legislature’s express but narrow abrogation of the common-law rule of parental immunity for parents with legal custody is inconsistent with plaintiffs’ expansive view of vicarious liability for a school district. … We conclude that a plaintiff alleging discrimination because of sex pro- hibited by ORS 659A.030(1)(b) need not establish that the employer only discriminated against members of the plain- tiff’s sex in order to establish

Deep Photonics Corp. v. LaChapelle

282 Or. App. 533 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 30, 2016

The trial court denied the special motion to strike, concluding that the claims alleged in the third-party complaint did not qualify for treatment under ORS 31.150. … To qualify for anti-SLAPP protection, the moving party must demonstrate the claim ‘arises from’ those activities.”).

State v. Gilbert

27 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 4, 1976

Assuming that the state did prosecute the original case exclusively on a theory of theft by withholding, [8] we agree that defendant is now immune from further prosecution for the crime of illegally withholding the firearms … Thus, while ORS 164.015(1) describes `theft' by using four words, the effect is clearly to define one single concept. See *38 Cameron v.

State v. Williams

326 Or. App. 64 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 17, 2023

The Court has not clearly articulated what federal law, exactly, is the source of the territorial limits on the jurisdiction of state courts. … ORS 131.325 required the state to establish for ORS 131.325 to apply and permit venue to be established in Washington County.”

Classen v. Arete NW, LLC

254 Or. App. 216 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 19, 2012

The trial court abuses its discretion if it exercises it in a manner that is unjustified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence. Quillen v. … On appeal, defendant defends that ruling on the ground that plaintiff could not plead a qualifying special relationship that would permit the recovery of economic damages in a negligence claim.

Fidanque v. State ex rel. Oregon Government Standards & Practices Commission

141 Or. App. 495 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 1996

Tidyman, 306 Or 174, 182 , 759 P2d 242 (1988): “Even * * * activities unquestionably devoted to constitutionally privileged purposes such as religion or free expression are not immune from regulations imposed for reasons … It then decided that, because the constitutional interests in free expression clearly outweigh any legislative interest in regulating campaign expenditures, the statutes violated both sections of the constitution.

Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance

169 Or. App. 405 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2000

set of criteria established by the director by rule.” … This clearly was not contemplated by the legislature as evidenced by a clear reading of the statute.

State v. Ortiz

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 5, 2023

Vage, 278 Or App 771, 777, 379 P3d 645, rev den, 360 Or 697 (2016) (“It is well established that an error does not qualify as plain error if the record contains a competing inference that the party may have had a strate- … That testimony was sufficient to qualify Miguel to offer 156 State v.

State v. Farber

59 Or. App. 725 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 20, 1982

He contends that no conspiracy was established to qualify the hearsay statements under the “co-conspirator rule” and that, alternatively, even if there was a conspiracy established, the admission of the inculpatory statements … It is seldom possible to establish a specific understanding by direct agreement between the parties to effect or accomplish an unlawful purpose.

Sizemore v. Keisling

164 Or. App. 80 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 3, 1999

On July 13, defendant publicly announced his determination that the proposed measure had received a sufficient *83 number of voter signatures to qualify for the November ballot. … The decision whether to submit portions of an initiative measure for separate vote is clearly such a function.

Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc.

258 Or. App. 390 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 5, 2013

determining whether a contract provision meets that standard, the court has considered both the language of the contract and the possibility of a harsh or inequitable result that would fall on one party if the other were immunized … We conclude that the release agreement’s language “clearly and unequivocally” expressed Mt. Bachelor’s intent to disclaim liability for negligence.

H. D. v. Stenbeck

322 Or. App. 551 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 26, 2022

He raises two assignments of error, contending that the trial court erred in grounding the SPO on speech-based contacts without determining whether they met the standard established in State v. … Nonprecedential Memo Op: 322 Or App 551 (2022) 555 but that “there’s so many e-mails that are clearly unwanted contact.”

Portland Metro. Ass'n of Realtors v. City of Portland

292 Or. App. 163 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 31, 2018

filed in the [Multnomah County Circuit Court] challenging Ordinance 187770 [and] [t]hat proceeding, on [petitioners'] motion, has been stayed pending the outcome of this appeal." *784 Moreover, although petitioners do not clearly … from Ordinance 187150, nor do petitioners proffer any exception under ORS 14.175, respondent attempts to demonstrate anyway that this action is moot, that no collateral consequences exist, and that this action does not qualify

Kupillas v. Sage and Social LLC

337 Or. App. 67 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 2024

Dwellings or structures used by the public do not qualify as agricultural buildings. ORS 455.315(2)(a)(B). … Dept. of Rev., 353 Or 616, 620, 302 P3d 804 (2013) (construing courts “resolve any ambiguity by applying well-established canons of statutory construction”).

State ex rel. Department of Veterans' Affairs v. City of Salem

22 Or. App. 71 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 14, 1975

The city’s personnel labor relations director indicated quite clearly that none of the collective bargaining agreements entered into by the Salem Professional Fire Fighters Council Local 314 and the city had limited the applicability … “Q I note that counsel made a point of establishing that the 1972-73 fiscal contract with the fire department, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12, said nothing about the merit pay plan, is that correct?