Case law

Spray v. Board of Medical Examiners

50 Or. App. 311 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 9, 1981

This determination is dependent on the practices of the medical community as established by expert testimony. … Such a denial was clearly in his discretion. See OAR 137-03-040(5). From the record it was apparent that petitioner could have examined Dr. Larsen during the proceedings.

Hughes v. PeaceHealth

204 Or. App. 614 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 15, 2006

As defendant explains, “[t]he legislature clearly considers a wrongful death action to provide recompense for injuries leading to death * * (Emphasis in original.) … this court has adhered to the view that no right of action for wrongful death existed at common law.”). 7 Article I, section 20, provides, “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities

State v. Cave

321 Or. App. 81 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 27, 2022

We review the trial court’s determination that evidence of uncharged misconduct qualifies for admission under OEC 404(3) or OEC 404(4) for legal error. State v. Terry, 309 Or App 459, 461, 482 P3d 105 (2021). … Upon review of the record, we disagree with the state that this is an instance where the trial court’s expla- nation of its ruling indicates that it clearly considered the propensity-based nature of the evidence in its OEC

State v. Clark

217 Or. App. 475 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 2008

“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That wouldn’t qualify it as an adopted admission. There has to be something overt. … Defendant’s contention is not clearly incorrect. The Alabama Supreme Court, for example, has adopted that rule.

Rohrer v. Oswego Cove, LLC

309 Or. App. 489 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 3, 2021

law is not available because ORS [chapter] 659A provides adequate remedies to Plaintiff for any alleged retaliation for engaging in pro- tected employment activity,” noting that, in its view, plain- tiff’s claim would “clearly … Oswego Cove, LLC did not err by dismissing [it] on summary judgment” where “none of the actions for which plaintiff claims to have been retaliated against qualify as * * * ‘reports’ of information that plaintiff believed

Horn v. Hill

180 Or. App. 139 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 13, 2002

On the other hand, the state’s medical evidence was countered by a qualified opposing opinion. … No suggested clarification to date — including the concurrence’s proposal — has clearly defined, for the benefit of bench and bar, the minimum threshold required to establish a “tendency to affect the result.”

State v. Martinez

275 Or. App. 451 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 2015

On the other hand when they have a conversation back and forth with somebody then I think they clearly have, so those are the two extremes. … And, because at least one text message in Exhibit 51 qualified as an adoptive admission, we affirm the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of that exhibit.

Managed Healthcare Northwest, Inc. v. Department of Consumer & Business Services

189 Or. App. 444 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 2003

Petitioners also argue that OAR 436-015-0070(2) “exceeds or contravenes specific, clearly expressed statutory policies and mandates” because, pursuant to ORS 656.260(4)(a), the MCO must formulate a plan that “proposes to … It’s just that you have established some type of patient-physician relationship with that individual and that individual then is your attending physician.” Id. (statement of Ed Redman).

Baertlein and Stocks

303 Or. App. 51 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 18, 2020

And, even if the judgment is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence establishes that intent. … City of Eugene, 297 Or App 775, 787-88, 444 P3d 1116 (2019) (the content of dis- cussions during contract negotiations qualifies as extrinsic evidence that may be considered under the first step of the Yogman analysis); Batzer

White v. Vogt

258 Or. App. 130 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 14, 2013

are in conjunction with a building permit and the final grade after backfill will not exceed a 2:1 slope.” 2 Under SRC 65.080, the limitations imposed in SRC 65.050 “may be varied by the director [of public works] if a qualified … Plaintiffs contend that SRC 69.060 and the Graduated Response Table set forth “a clearly ministerial five-step procedure for the City to follow in issuing permits.”

D. O. v. Richey

301 Or. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 2019

When petitioner crossed the intersection and could distin- guish his words clearly, respondent raised issues related to traffic safety and policing. … Notable here is the absence of evidence from 14 It is well established across jurisdictions that photographing and filming government officials while they are conducting official duties in public is integral

Myers v. Howton

296 Or. App. 500 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 13, 2019

Clearly, she knew that the waiver meant the DA would not seek the death penalty. The DA's case was extremely strong. Conviction was highly likely. The choice benefitted pet[itioner]." … Jackson , 390 U.S. 570 , 88 S.Ct. 1209 , 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968), to stand for her proposition that a waiver of a constitutional right in exchange solely for immunity from the death penalty is an involuntary waiver.

State v. Hensley

281 Or. App. 523 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 12, 2016

In Oatney , police played a recording of the petitioner’s immunized statements during an interrogation of the petitioner’s code-fendant. Id. at 197-98 . … On appeal, the state does not clearly raise an attenuation argument; to the extent that the trial court may have rested its conclusion on attenuation, it erred.

Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Portland

243 Or. App. 133 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 25, 2011

Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 587 F3d 966, 981 (9th Cir 2009) (holding that, under the First Amendment, a provision of the town’s sign ordinance regulating the size, number, hours of display, location, and construction of “qualifying … Redrafting, on the other hand, includes completely eliminating a word, phrase, or *160 concept that the original text clearly and intentionally includes or adding a completely new word, phrase, or concept that it does not

State v. Hunt

271 Or. App. 603 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 10, 2015

So if [defendant] would like an attorney and she qualifies, that would be an appropriate time to do that. “THE COURT: Okay. [Defendant], the district attorney’s office is taking the REAP off the table. … The state responds that defendant never asserted below that she was confused or did not understand the REAP offer, the terms of which are clearly set out in the paperwork defendant received.

State v. Cockrell

174 Or. App. 442 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 6, 2001

As the investigation progressed, defendant qualified his admissions by explaining that, while he meant to say that the touching was inappropriate in light of his prior sexual misconduct and the counseling he had received … The state contends that defendant’s prior conduct was relevant to establish his intent to obtain sexual gratification when he touched J.C.’s crotch area while roughhousing.

Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus.

289 Or. App. 507 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 28, 2017

The Kleins have not provided us with any persuasive explanation for why the legislature would have intended to grant equal privileges and immunities to individuals in same-sex relationships while simultaneously excepting … reason requirement so long as it "provide[s] an explanation connecting the facts of the case and the result reached, and [there is] no indication that, in making its decision, the [agency] relied on evidence that did not qualify

STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Stallcup

195 Or. App. 239 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 2004

Clearly, that approach is broader than the 1997 amendments [to ORS 35.346]. *246 “This interpretation of the statute may well lead to further efforts to avoid disclosure by labeling documents as drafts or preliminary statements … Defendant next argues that the appraisals did not qualify as “newly discovered evidence” because they were “merely impeaching.” See Oberg, 316 Or at 277 .

State v. Worsham

332 Or. App. 154 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 24, 2024

The prosecutor continued on the theme of control, then concluded by stating, “He has a duty, injecting himself, not to provoke or be the initial aggressor which he clearly does. … instruction from the court as to what it means to be the “initial aggres- sor,” a juror could reasonably—but incorrectly—conclude that defendant deciding to involve himself in the situation and yelling at C not to beat on women qualified

Springville Corp. v. Stoel Rives LLP

276 Or. App. 725 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 9, 2016

Although, I think on the merits, clearly we win that one.” The court announced its rulings from the bench after hearing closing arguments. … Salas-Juarez, 264 Or App 57, 64 , 329 P3d 805 , rev den, 356 Or 575 (2014) (“An error does not qualify as plain error if the record contains a competing inference that the party may have had a strategic purpose for not objecting