Case law

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

Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson County

168 Or. App. 624 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 28, 2000

First, the state program clearly regulates the licensing of water well constructors. ORS 537.750. … See OAR 690-217-0050 (licensed water well constructors are qualified to conduct well “pump” tests according to acceptable techniques).

State v. Kimbrough

285 Or. App. 84 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 2017

“Under that standard, an attempt *** must be established by conduct that is corroborative of the actor’s criminal purpose.” State v. Carlton, 361 Or 29, 45 , 388 P3d 1093 (2017). … There is no special rule regarding whether a solicitation is also an attempt: “[U]nder Oregon law, ‘[s]olicitation *** qualifies as a “substantial step” if, under the facts, the defendant’s actions exceed mere preparation

Oregon Trail Electric Consumers Cooperative, Inc. v. Co-Gen Co.

168 Or. App. 466 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 21, 2000

The court began by observing that, “[a]t first reading, the language of Article IV.B may not seem to clearly express under what circumstances prices may be modified.” … Thus, the evidence on which OTECC relies does not establish a “mutual” mistake.

State v. Hendricks

273 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 19, 2015

The trial court acknowledged that Counts 3 and 4 were “based on the exact same conduct,” but explained that they “clearly don’t merge” because “each statutory provision requires proof * * * of elements that the other doesn … Conversely, “ [w]hen recklessness suffices to establish a culpable mental state, it is also established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly.” ORS 161.115(3).

State v. P. F.

350 Or. App. 390 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 10, 2026

See generally ORS 426.701 (governing the procedures for seeking the commitment of persons with qualifying mental disorders who are determined to be “extremely dangerous”). … Nooth, 292 Or App 524, 531, 425 P3d 484 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 749 (2019) (James, J., concurring) (“Judges do not become immune to the inherent, unconscious, biases present in the human mind by virtue of their office.”).

Piazza v. State

261 Or. App. 425 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 26, 2014

Whether the statement was clearly and understanding^ made by the plaintiff or the defendant, and whether the language is correctly remembered and accurately reported by the witness. … Generally, hearsay is inadmissible unless it qualifies under an exception or exclusion from that general rule. OEC 802.

Fidanque v. OR. GOVT. STANDARDS & PRACT.

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

Tidyman, 306 Or. 174, 182 , 759 P.2d 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.

State v. Spears

223 Or. App. 675 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 12, 2008

“Takes” is a well-established legal term that has long held a place in the common law of larceny. … Thus, while ORS 164.015(1) describes ‘theft’ by using four words, the effect is clearly to define one single concept.” Id. at 218-19 (emphasis added).

State v. Lowell

249 Or. App. 364 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 18, 2012

In summary, this court is an "error-correcting" court, and its obligation is to follow precedents as established by the Supreme Court. … The court should revisit the policies underlying preservation and "plain error" and define them clearly for the benefit of bench and bar.

Salem College & Academy, Inc. v. Employment Division

61 Or. App. 616 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 16, 1983

established church. … , clearly recognizable ministries from holding elective office, while permitting the members of nonorthodox humanistic faiths having no ‘counterpart’ to ministers, 547 SW2d 897, 908 (1977), similarly engaged to do so.

Vasquez-Lopez v. Beneficial Oregon, Inc.

210 Or. App. 553 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 31, 2007

Under Oregon law, as noted above, procedural unconscionability is relevant, but the emphasis is clearly on substantive unconscionability: “The substantive fairness of the challenged terms is always an essential issue.” … Oregon law clearly establishes that unconscionability *573 “applies to contract terms rather than to contract performance.” Best, 303 Or at 560 .

In Re the Marriage of Forney

239 Or. App. 406 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 2010

He also purchased, with allotments from his military pension, three life insurance policies and established a Navy Federal Credit Union account. … It is clearly not a marital asset, because it was acquired by husband before the marriage. About that much, there appears to be no dispute.

State v. P. F.

350 Or. App. 390 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 10, 2026

See generally ORS 426.701 (governing the procedures for seeking the commitment of persons with qualifying mental disorders who are determined to be “extremely dangerous”). … Nooth, 292 Or App 524, 531, 425 P3d 484 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 749 (2019) (James, J., concurring) (“Judges do not become immune to the inherent, unconscious, biases present in the human mind by virtue of their office.”).

IBEW Local 89 v. Wallan

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2023

harm can qualify as a “personal stake” or as having a legal effect on the individual. … Petitioners do not have standing to bring this action based on the alleged institutional injuries.8 We thus turn to the few allegations in the affida- vits that are not clearly institutional injuries.

Murphy v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

241 Or. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 23, 2011

Hessman denied petitioner’s request for an attorney, asserting that he did not qualify as indigent. … We conclude that petitioner has failed to establish that the board’s error was not harmless.

State v. Henry

315 Or. App. 169 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 2021

The affidavit executed by CVCP did not establish that the amounts paid were at, or below, the market rate. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the restitution award. … To qualify for plain-error review under ORAP 5.45, an error must be (1) an error of law; (2) obvious and not reasonably in dispute; and (3) apparent on the record without requiring the court to choose among competing inferences

Becklin v. Board of Examiners for Engineering & Land Surveying

195 Or. App. 186 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 2004

being questioned regarding the specifications of the screens, he stated, “If you will read the engineering proposal and the solicitation package, and if you understand blue print reading, you will see that that detail is clearly … On the merits, the board contends that it was petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that he qualified for the exceptions.

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.

Nicita v. City of Oregon City

286 Or. App. 659 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2017

Nothing in the 2040 Growth Concept text or map clearly precludes the city from designating a Corridor in a location other than the locations designated on Metro’s 2040 Growth Concept map. … The subject property in this case, without transit, and isolated from other Corridor-designated properties, doesn’t qualify for the applicable comprehensive plan and zoning designations.