Case law

Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc. v. Thorson

260 F. Supp. 3d 1338 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 1, 2017

Thus, the fact that a recovery plan carnes with it “real-world consequences” is not enough to qualify it as a final agency action. 7 . … ESA and APA provisions, to establish waiver of immunity Coos County must have successfully stated a claim under those provisions....

State v. Albee

118 Or. App. 212 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 17, 1993

The equal privileges and immunities clause is also implicated when vague laws give unbridled discretion to judges and jurors to decide what is prohibited in a given case, for this results in the unequal application of criminal … We conclude, however, that defendant’s concerns about the general application of the statute are irrelevant to this case, because his conduct clearly comes within the statutory language.

State v. Jutstrom Fish Co.

149 Or. 362 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1934

When goods or merchandise are imported, their immunity from state taxation lasts, as said in Sonneborn Bros. v. … Hence we conclude that, even if it be assumed that the fish were imports, they have, under the admitted facts, been so acted upon as to establish a tax situs.

Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc.

369 Or. 735 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 3, 2022

See 42 USC § 2000a(e) (“The pro- visions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made … available to the customers or patrons of an establish- ment within the scope of subsection (b).”).

Rinne v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd.

297 Or. App. 549 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 2019

In exploring that issue, we note that, although neither the plain text of ORS 161.351(1) (2011) nor any case law of which we are aware establishes a nexus requirement, neither party advances an alternate reading of the statute … Roff later testified, however, that petitioner had stated "very clearly that he has no issue whatsoever" in participating in sex offender treatment outside the hospital and is "absolutely willing" to restart treatment in

Cortez v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 070754c (or.tax 2-14-2008)

Oregon Tax Court · Feb 14, 2008

The statute provides in relevant part: *Page 3 "A qualified taxpayer shall be allowed a credit against the taxes otherwise due under ORS chapter 316 equal to the applicable percentage of the qualified taxpayer's child care … Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof and must establish their case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. ORS 305.427 .

Dungan v. Travelers Insurance

257 Or. 511 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1970

The information on this form and the evidence in general concerning Daniel’s age and physical and mental condition clearly established that he qualified as an eligible dependent of his father under the terms of the policy … The defendant’s argument that the evidence did *516 not establish Fairview as a “legally constituted hospital” is completely without merit. Whether it is licensed or not is immaterial.

SCHMIDT v. City of Cornelius

211 Or. 505 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1957

These three cases establish the basic principle which is here involved. In a specially concurring *525 opinion in the General Electric case Mr. … Clearly, exclusion of territory from a city by act of the city is an exercise of municipal legislation under the decision of the case last cited.

Nacoste v. Halton Co.

275 Or. App. 600 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 23, 2015

Cheek replied: “Section 10 [enacted as ORS 656.267] clearly addresses the Johansen case, which established essentially that new medical conditions that arose related to an initial compen-sable injury, but were not part of … It *606 establishes the criteria for doing that. So, it does address the holding in the Johansen case squarely.”

McCormick v. Oregon Employment Dept.

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 22, 2022

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to establish these elements. First, plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege a protected property interest in unemployment assistance. … “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.

Thomsen v. NaphCare, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 31, 2021

Therefore, I do not adopt Judge Acosta’s findings and recommendation insofar as they relate to qualified immunity. F&R [165] at 31-34. … CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendation and J ADOPT the F&R [165] with the exception of its discussion of qualified immunity.

State v. Moreno-Hernandez

365 Or. 175 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 13, 2019

The caseworker also testified that all children in DHS custody qualify for the Oregon Health Plan and that stays at Mingus Mountain would be paid for by that insurance. … Because the plaintiff qualified for Medicare benefits, he did not end up having to pay any of that amount.

G.C. Ex Rel. Counts v. North Clackamas School District

654 F. Supp. 2d 1226 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 21, 2009

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), affect defendants’ qualified immunity argument, and what is plaintiffs response to that argument? … Finally, because I recommend granting summary judgment to defendants on the merits of the section 1983 claims, I do not consider defendants’ qualified immunity argument.

State v. Hollywood

67 Or. App. 546 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 11, 1984

The statements made by the child were clearly relevant — they established most of the requisite elements of the criminal offenses with which defendant was charged. … He argues that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to establish his guilt of rape and attempted rape.

Prestidge v. Dept. of Rev.

21 Or. Tax 386 · Oregon Tax Court · May 13, 2014

As provided for in the trust instrument, three trusts were then established. … The QTIP Trust was designed to qualify under federal estate tax law as vesting in Mifflin an interest of such magnitude that the transfer would qualify for the marital deduction in computing the federal estate tax liability

State v. Holbrook

348 Or. App. 93 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 1, 2026

Thus, a reasonable juror could have found that the afternoon inci- dent was a qualifying contact. … In the context of defendant’s earlier behav- ior, his controlling statements, his unwanted physical intru- sion into D’s home and space on the morning of August 3, which I agree establish the first qualifying contact under

State v. Bainbridge

230 Or. App. 500 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 2, 2009

Before the trial court, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of the offense. … The state also argues that, “[b]ecause some of the highway workers present in the highway work zone qualified as pedestrians, and because the record supports an inference that they controlled access to the zone, that area

Petersen v. Employment Department

135 Or. App. 344 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 28, 1995

That structure permits two plausible constructions: either subsection (1)(c) qualifies only subsection (1)(b) or it qualifies both subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b). … If the legislature intended that the latter control the former, it clearly knew how to express that intent; it did not do so. Accord Oregon Business Planning Council v.

Oregon Public Employees' Retirement Board v. Simat, Helliesen & Eichner

191 Or. App. 408 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 21, 2004

In particular, Reinbold asserts that, because plaintiffs evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of common-law fraud, it was also, necessarily, insufficient to establish misrepresentation of tne sort required … However, shareholder immunity is not absolute.

Alcutt v. Adams Family Food Services, Inc.

258 Or. App. 767 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 9, 2013

In support of its motion, defendant relied on the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law, ORS 656.018, asserting that it was “immune from liability on [plaintiffs] claims for relief’ under that statute … Plaintiff has clearly set it forth in paragraph 7 of his complaint that it’s necessary, in order to be here, for the worker to have failed to establish that a work-related incident was the major contributing cause of the