Case law

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?

Columbia Gorge Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge

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

Petitioners challenge the commission's conclusion that the decline in the timber industry qualifies as a significant change under OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(1). … In enacting that scheme, Congress clearly envisioned that the management plan would evolve as circumstances and conditions changed.

State v. Lafferty

240 Or. App. 564 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 16, 2011

I know that the law provides for an increase in the maximum up to 30 years if I qualify as a dangerous offender. I understand that this will not happen in this case. … Moreover, as noted, defendant did not purport to qualify his waiver of a jury trial in any way; neither did he subsequently assert during the course of the trial that any limits or conditions applied to his waiver.

Patton v. J. C. Penney Co.

75 Or. App. 638 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 9, 1985

Clearly, that relationship is not an arm's length one between strangers. … Well-established public policies are advanced.

Weber v. Oakridge School District 76

184 Or. App. 415 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 23, 2002

The district’s drug policy qualifies, therefore, as long as it was “promulgated pursuant to authority.” … that the risk of injury to student-athletes is sufficiently serious to qualify as “compelling” is beside the point.

Piburn v. SAIF Corp.

199 Or. App. 494 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 11, 2005

OAR 436-035-0020 clearly distinguishes between the hand and digits: Subsection (3) states that “[t]he hand begins at the joints between the carpals and metacarpals” and “extends to the joints between the metacarpals and the … At least two digits must have impairment other than loss of opposition to qualify for conversion to hand. *499 “(2) When converting impairment values of digits to hand values, the applicable hand impairment is determined

Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dulcich

170 Or. App. 219 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 4, 2000

establish the value of the unseeded shells themselves. … It subsequently qualified that ruling by saying “at least at this point in the proceedings, and it’s subject to further, I suppose, motions to look at down the road.”

Oregon College of Education Federation of Teachers v. Employment Relations Board

29 Or. App. 39 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 11, 1977

In fact, she had assumed all of the responsibilities and was entitled to all of the benefits of employment within the qualifying payroll period. … She clearly shared a community of interest with her fellow employes sufficiently to enable her to participate in decisions regarding representation.

Mendoza v. Xtreme Truck Sales, LLC

328 Or. App. 471 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 4, 2023

Moreover, it is well established in analogous federal case law that a trial court may need to engage in factfinding to decide an FRCP 68 motion. See, e.g., Hobbs v. … erroneous); Vasconcelo, 981 F3d at 944 (“[T]he district court did not clearly err in its implicit factual finding that Vasconcelo’s non-pecuniary interest in establishing Miami Auto Max’s liability was not worth more than

Peta v. Inst. Animal Care & Use Com.

794 P.2d 1224 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 27, 1990

PETA argues that, under that language, it clearly has standing, because it participated, advocated its position and lost. … ORS 183.310(5)(b). [3] PETA qualifies as a person under ORS 183.310(7): "`Person' means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental subdivision or public or private organization of any character other

Huxford v. Adult & Family Services Division

174 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 2, 2001

We therefore begin by discussing the relationship between the support payments in self-sufficiency programs and the payments in other programs that clearly constitute grants of public assistance. … By definition, self-sufficiency support payments do not qualify as “grants of aid.” 10 Petitioner also makes two arguments under federal law.

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”).

Stumpf v. Continental Casualty Co.

102 Or. App. 302 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 27, 1990

The court concluded that “the defendant * * * could not secure immunity from liability for the negligence of the physicians it might employ to perform the contract on its behalf by the plea *308 that it exercised due care … Those allegations do not, as a matter of law, constitute wilful non-cooperation, which is required to establish the defense. See Rosalez v. Unigard Insurance Co., 283 Or 63, 67 , 581 P2d 945 (1978).

State v. Jim

13 Or. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 2, 1973

An accusation of theft by extortion must be supported by proof establishing theft by extortion.” The effect of the trial court’s ruling on the demurrers at bar is to negate the second sentence of subsection (2) above. … An indictment in the language of the statute is generally sufficient with certain qualifying exceptions. State v. Smith, supra; State v. Anderson, supra.

Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc.

153 Or. App. 442 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 22, 1998

However, that mental state, even if it had been conclusively established, is not a defense to a false arrest action.” Stranahan v. … “An abuse of discretion occurs when a court exercises its discretion to an end not justified by and clearly against the evidence and reason.” Lutz v. State, 130 Or App 278, 285 , 881 P2d 171 (1994).

Chernaik v. Kitzhaber

263 Or. App. 463 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 2014

In some cases in which “the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action was clearly based on a determination of the merits of the claim,” we have “review [ed] that determination as a matter of law and then remand [ed] for … Defendants also argued to the trial court that they were protected against plaintiffs’ claim by principles of sovereign immunity. Defendants do not pursue that argument on appeal, and we do not address it further.

State v. Baucum

268 Or. App. 649 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 22, 2015

At trial, the state offered Jackson’s testimony to establish defendant’s BAC at the time of the police stop. … Finally, he must be able to clearly and consistently apply the science.

Follansbee v. Ooi

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

Schaefer v. Marion County

318 Or. App. 617 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 30, 2022

Thus, although the bill did not refer to airport boundaries, it effectively created airport boundaries by defining which land qualified as “airports.” … Those provisions clearly identify the act that increases the size of a public use airport like Aurora State. The airport boundary establishes the size of the airport.