Case law

Gilliam County v. Department of Environmental Quality

114 Or. App. 369 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 22, 1992

Only if the action was clearly so authorized is there any reason to decide whether the state or local government has adopted a policy that the constitution forbids.” 297 Or at 565 . … It clearly wished to avoid spreading among all Oregonians the costs of mitigating environmental risks that they did not create.

Reeves v. Nooth

294 Or. App. 711 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 7, 2018

Johnson just prior to the robbery, and was clearly an aider and abettor in the course of the robbery and did receive the fruit of the robbery following that act." … Similarly, the Supreme Court's dicta in Anderson about the availability of a post-conviction remedy based on newly discovered evidence was expressly qualified ("[a]s a general rule") and does not reflect a considered examination

State v. Simonsen

275 Or. App. 154 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 2, 2015

Thus, the form of instruction submitted by the state specified, in pertinent part: í]í “In this case, to establish the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following four … Under that doctrine, to qualify as “plain error,” the asserted error (1) must be an error of law; (2) must be “apparent, i.e., the point must be obvious, not reasonably in dispute”; and (3) “must appear ‘on the face of the

Gilbride v. Smith

328 Or. App. 565 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 11, 2023

Father’s attorney proposed a “qualified and respected” evaluator who had conducted over 140 such 570 Gilbride v. … Sewell, 257 Or App 462, 469, 307 P3d 464, rev den, 354 Or 389 (2013) (“An abuse of discretion occurs when a court exercises its discretion to an end not justified by, and clearly against, evidence and rea- son.”

Sunflower v. Bladorn

168 Or. App. 206 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 31, 2000

But in my years on the bench, I have seen few, if any, cases in which it speaks more clearly to the point. … It avoids quoting the complete text of even that definition, which includes the qualifying phrase “by public notice.” (Emphasis added.)

Corkum v. Bi-Mart Corp.

271 Or. App. 411 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 28, 2015

In the report that he wrote after the examination, Bernardo stated that claimant’s right inguinal hernia “clearly has been present for some period of time.” … Once the claimant establishes a compensable injury, the burden shifts to the employer to establish that “the otherwise compensable injury is not, or is no longer, the major contributing cause” of the claimant’s disability

Mouktabis v. Clackamas County Assessor

327 Or. App. 763 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 7, 2023

On remand from the Supreme Court, we concluded that the same online review qualified as a matter of public interest under the anti- SLAPP statute. Neumann v. … Hanson, 190 Or App 412, 417-18, 79 P3d 404 (2003) (litigation privilege provides immunity for conduct and statements made in connection with judicial proceedings, but there is an exception for “wrongful initiation” actions

Gilley Co. v. Mutual Wholesale Drug Co.

59 Or. App. 48 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 8, 1982

Parr stated that at least one message had clearly indicated that he had an offer on the. Mutual warehouse. … Cota would have been able to qualify that agreement for that earnest money and the conditions. He was the broker. “Q. So, you don’t — you don’t know what would have happened? “A. No. “Q.

Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores - Kroger Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 6, 2023

When a worker requests a medical arbiter examination, the arbiter’s report is instead used to establish impairment—unless a prepon- derance of the medical evidence establishes that the attend- ing physician’s findings are … She argues that the arbiter panel clearly identified the newly accepted condition, and unambiguously attributed 40 percent of her impairment to that condition.

State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. San Seng Saechao

167 Or. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 10, 2000

The state responds that, because Vinh also participated in the altercation, the evidence established the requisite number of participants. We agree with the state. … Therefore, viewing the word “participating” in isolation, Vinh’s involvement would appear to qualify. The question remains, however, whether the addition of the word “with” narrows the statutory meaning.

State v. West

250 Or. App. 196 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 31, 2012

He did not attempt to establish that information concerning the functioning and reliability of the Intoxilyzer was not available to him. … The issue is how far the State goes in preparing you for trial, and you have pointed to constitutional cases which relate to something far different, that relate to exculpatory statements or exculpatory information or clearly

State v. Washington

585 P.2d 24 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 1978

Somewhere between clearly relevant and clearly irrelevant circumstances are those circumstances the relevance of which undeniably exists, but is not weighty. … It is well established that "where the relevancy of the evidence is slight and the probability of undue prejudice is substantial, the evidence should be excluded." State v.

State v. Williams

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.”

Port of Portland v. Bilic

91 Or. App. 318 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 1, 1988

Travelers who could not qualify for one of the limited transportation services would have to use private transportation or taxis to leave the airport. … State regulation of interstate commerce which regulates evenhandly and which imposes an incidental and not clearly excessive burden on interstate commerce is permissible. Pike v.

Lourim v. Swensen

147 Or. App. 425 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 16, 1997

In brief, the statute clearly does apply to negligence claims, but only those involving “knowingly allowing, permitting or encouraging child abuse.” … The addition of the qualifier “knowingly” was merely intended to limit the scope of such claims to those in which the employers have actual knowledge of the employee’s abusive conduct.

Wheeler v. Marathon Printing, Inc.

157 Or. App. 290 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 25, 1998

Those effects of plaintiffs major depression clearly demonstrate a substantial limitation on his “major life activities” under ORS 659.400(2)(a) (1989). See Marconi v. … Under Lewis , such allowance is insufficient to establish IIED. Accordingly, we reverse the IIED judgment against Marathon.

In re the Marriage of Hutchinson

187 Or. App. 733 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 2003

Wife also asserts that husband failed to rebut her evidence that husband was qualified for employment at an annual salary in the range of $120,000 to $150,000. … If the requisite change in circumstances is established, “ ‘[t]he overriding consideration in determining the appropriate amount of spousal support is what is “just and equitable,” * * * under the totality of the circumstances

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Nguyen

194 Or. App. 604 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 2004

That is, some mutually agreed-upon understanding that establishes goals, establishes ways to measure those goals, and that you enter into that agreement in good faith, that you agree to be candid and forthcoming, that you … She also testified that, “the literature * * * speaks very clearly to the need for parents to identify * * * what the triggers were that led to the abuse.”

Mouktabis v. Amarou

314 Or. App. 130 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 1, 2021

Dept. of Rev., 356 Or 282, 296, 337 P3d 768 (2014) (“[W]hen a term is a legal one, we look to its ‘established legal meaning’ as revealed by * * * legal dictionaries.”); see also Oliver L. … men- tally impaired so as to be incapable of understanding the nature and significance of the proceeding or incapable of making those critical decisions that are the parent’s right to make, then a court would clearly

State v. Patnesky

265 Or. App. 356 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 2014

Thus, the phrase “engaging in” qualifies “passive resistance” as a particular activity; in this context, “engaging in *** passive resistance” is not merely a characterization of how an individual may refuse a lawful order … “(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 intended