Case law

Service Employees International Union Local 503 v. State, Department of Administrative Services

183 Or. App. 594 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 25, 2002

We stated: “[T]he legislature established a detailed scheme for implementing reductions in teaching staffs. … We see no indication that the legislature intended those provisions to be subordinate to PECBA or that they supersede collective bargaining only if they ‘clearly and necessarily’ preclude it.”

Schlimgen v. May Trucking Co.

178 Or. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 19, 2001

Dryer warned that allowing judges to supersede juries was tantamount to establishing a “judicial monarchy.” Id. at 314. … Similarly, the Supreme Court has recently observed that a jury’s determination of the amount of punitive damages is a fact question and therefore immune from challenge under the state constitution. Parrott v.

Miller v. CC Meisel Co., Inc.

183 Or. App. 148 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 7, 2002

It also acknowledged that, if plaintiff had filed a Us pendens notice, “he’d have statutory — assuming it’s filed in good faith and all that, he’d have statutory immunity!.]” … The Printing Industry court interpreted those statutes as prohibiting any changes from the jury’s verdict on the amount of damages, even if the law clearly allowed additional damages.

In Re Marriage of Denton

145 Or. App. 381 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 1996

Still, valuing the extent of the contributions of a homemaker *387 spouse proved difficult to establish. … That much is established by statute. ORS 107.105(1)(f).

Stalder v. Board of Medical Examiners

37 Or. App. 853 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 1978

The order in question falls far short of the established standards. First, the order fails to state the basic facts found to be true. … Petitioner cannot, therefore, establish in any case prejudice arising from the hearings officer’s ruling on the question put to the husband.

State v. Pilon

321 Or. App. 460 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 31, 2022

Once those reports were created, the state had them in its possession, and they were subject to discovery.3 3 Without copies of the reports, we cannot conclusively find that they would qualify as exculpatory or … This statute clearly establishes a wide range of discretion on the part of a trial court in deciding how to address discovery violations.

In Re the Marriage of Jenks

55 Or. App. 824 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 8, 1982

In 1979, he received a salary of $21,500, a bonus of $1,500, and $2,700 in Naval Reserve pay. 1 After two and one-half more years of Naval Reserve duty, he will qualify for retirement benefits (which will mature when he reaches … Smith, supra, and for establishment of a reasonable visitation schedule. As modified, the decree is affirmed.

State v. Mannix

263 Or. App. 162 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 21, 2014

Defendant subsequently contacted the Office of Public Defense Services (OPDS) requesting a citation to the administrative rule establishing the financial eligibility guidelines. … That, clearly, is not the situation here; the juror’s bias, if any, would not derive from his relationship to the injured person, the complainant, or defendant, but to a prosecution witness.

State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Johnson

168 Or. App. 81 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 31, 2000

ORS 161.605 3 classifies crimes into separate sentencing categories and establishes the “maximum term of an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment” for each of the felonies listed. … The plain meaning of “indefinite” includes “having no exact limits: indeterminate in extent or amount: not clearly fixed sentenced to an ; prison term> * * Id. at 1147.

Eagles Five, LLC v. Lawton

250 Or. App. 413 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 13, 2012

In other words, to qualify for injunctive relief, it must be shown that the conduct to be enjoined is “probable or threatened.” McCombs et al v. McClelland, 223 Or 475, 485 , 354 P2d 311 (1960). … Walker, 246 Or App 589, 598 , 266 P3d 178 (2011), and must be established by clear and convincing evidence, Thompson v. Schuh, 286 Or 201, 203 , 593 P2d 1138 (1979).

State v. Smith

51 Or. App. 223 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 16, 1981

The Puyallup 8 cases established that while the right to take fish at usual and accustomed places cannot be qualified by the state, the manner of fishing, size of take and any commercial fishing may be regulated for conservation … As crimes, the offenses would normally require a culpable mental state unless it could be said it was "An offense defined by a statute outside the Oregon Criminal code clearly indicating] a legislative intent to dispense

Mann v. Wetter

100 Or. App. 184 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 17, 1990

Wetter contends that the language of the release clearly did include him. As a general rule, the construction of a contract is a question of law for the court. … The clause does not provide total immunity; rather, it limits the exemption from liability to negligence claims.

State v. Lacey

282 Or. App. 123 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 9, 2016

Although we could have qualified our holding in that way, we did not. … established Supreme Court precedent. 532 F3d at 145 .

State v. Mankiller

344 Or. App. 327 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 22, 2025

“In particular, we look to the harm targeted by the substantive criminal offense to identify who, in the view of the legisla- ture, would qualify as a victim.” State v. … In other words, merger is presumed unless there is evidence supporting findings establishing anti-merger.

GTE Northwest Inc. v. Public Utility Commission

130 Or. App. 637 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 19, 1994

Although the Court in Loretto never clearly defines what is a permanent physical occupation, it does give examples of what it considers to be permanent invasions and temporary invasions. … Although deprivation of the right to use and obtain a profit from property is not, in every case, independently sufficient to establish a taking, it is clearly relevant.

State v. Mankiller

344 Or. App. 327 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 22, 2025

“In particular, we look to the harm targeted by the substantive criminal offense to identify who, in the view of the legisla- ture, would qualify as a victim.” State v. … In other words, merger is presumed unless there is evidence supporting findings establishing anti-merger.

Jackson County Citizens' League v. Jackson County

171 Or. App. 149 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 22, 2000

. *152 LUBA first concluded: “[P]etitioners fail to establish why Goal 14 applies to this permit decision. … We have already concluded that Goal 14 does not require that the county *154 determine whether an application for a permit to develop a use that is authorized on EFU-zoned land qualifies as ‘urban development.’

State ex rel. Department of Human Services v. K. C.

227 Or. App. 216 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 1, 2009

Mother explained that he had recently received immunizations and that his unusual behavior was a side effect. The Criders returned to their residence in Oregon City with A; mother stayed at the apartment. … proved its case under ORS 419B.502, we do not discuss the court’s findings or conclusions regarding ORS 419B.504 except to note that *226 several of the allegations in the state’s petition relevant to that statute were quite clearly

State v. Mayer

146 Or. App. 86 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 29, 1997

An out-of-court statement admissible under another hearsay exception cannot qualify as corroborative evidence under OEC 803(18a)(b). … “The legislature clearly intended that a defendant not be convicted on hearsay alone; therefore, a declarant’s admissible statement cannot be used to bootstrap into admissibility otherwise inadmissible statements made by

State v. Smith

66 Or. App. 374 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 11, 1984

Here, admission of the jacket established defendant’s proclivity for wearing clothing similar to that worn by the victim’s assailant. … The court may appoint one or more qualified psychiatrists to examine the defendant or may order that he be taken by the sheriff to a state hospital designated by the Mental Health Division for the examination. * * * * “(3