Case law

Gantenbein v. Public Employes' Retirement Board

33 Or. App. 309 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 3, 1978

Nine months later the plan was amended in such a fashion as to clearly exclude the plaintiff from *316 its scope. … by Oregon Laws 1969, ch 332, in order to establish whether it provided for a retirement benefit of 45 percent or 50 percent.

Murray v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 17, 2025

Although the Court finds that Plaintiff is eligible to proceed IFP, Plaintiff has failed to establish that she has valid, nonfrivolous claims against Defendants. … This statutory language has been held to clearly establish that Title II of the ADA is inapplicable to the federal government, its agencies, and its officers and employees.”)

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.

State v. Webster

280 Or. App. 217 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 10, 2016

Rather, defendant argues that the “presumptive” term is the term established by the sentencing guidelines grid block that corresponds to his conviction. … Second, the authority that defendant cites does not support that the trial court’s ruling was clearly erroneous. Most notably, the relevance of Hicks to defendant’s appeal is debatable at best.

Farr v. U.S. West, Inc.

815 F. Supp. 1364 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 24, 1992

The Act sets standards for participation, vesting and funding and establishes an insurance system to protect pension plans. … They rely upon these documents solely to establish that defendants assumed a “duty” to provide the § 415 limit tax information.

Pacificab Co. v. Employment Department

187 Or. App. 693 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 2003

on the grounds that claimant was an independent contractor and therefore not covered by the unemployment insurance laws, and in any event, even if she was an employee, she was fired for misconduct and therefore did not qualify … Clearly, PacifiCab met its burden with respect to subsection (a): Claimant provided *698 services primarily (indeed, entirely) away from her residence. The department does not contend otherwise.

Pacific Power & Light Co. v. State Tax Commission

2 Or. Tax 420 · Oregon Tax Court · Aug 25, 1966

Plaintiff, however, would use the formula established by OES 317.095. … But these general rules are qualified with the words and phrases “generally,” “however,” “in some instances,” and “in most instances.”

In re Harris

366 Or. 475 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 21, 2020

Two of the five circumstances set out in RPC 5.5(c)(1) to (5) in which a lawyer may provide legal services in Oregon without being admitted to the Oregon Bar clearly contemplate a situation in which the lawyer’s services … That rule does not shed light on respondent’s situation, because he was qualified to practice law in this jurisdiction on a temporary basis under RPC 5.5(c).

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. City of West Linn

192 Or. App. 567 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 24, 2004

of religion (referred to in this section as the ‘Establishment Clause’). *581 Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation … Immunity from Land Use Regulations In its fourth assignment of error, the city argues that LUBA erred in interpreting and applying RLUIPA so as to provide religious entities with “immunity” from land use regulations, that

Ross v. Springfield School District No. 19

294 Or. 357 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1982

Petitioner appealed to the Fair Dismissal Appeals Board (FDAB) by means of the procedure established in ORS 342.905. … Whether Ross is qualified to teach in the State of Oregon is determined by the Teachers Standards and Practices Commission and reviewed by the State Board of Education.

Kelsay

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 8, 2025

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity, which would preclude Plaintiff from obtaining relief. Defs.’ Mot. … Qualified immunity “shields Government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights[.]’”

State v. Stalder

205 Or. App. 126 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 19, 2006

The state further responds that the sentence is not indeterminate because it clearly states that defendant must serve for a specific number of months, namely, 64. … Instead, it merely added the qualifier that the total sentence cannot exceed 60 months. That, however, does not satisfy OAR 213-005-0002(4). Nor does the additional qualifier cure the problem.

Coe v. United States

502 F. Supp. 881 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 1980

Coe, seems about as good an approach as any and establishes the amount of the loss about as well as it can be determined. … Immunity is waived only to the extent that a private person would be liable to the claimant under the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.

State v. Singleton

317 Or. App. 49 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 12, 2022

When a defendant has established that he is eligible to have his conviction set aside, the court may deny such a motion if the court determines that the “circumstances and behavior of the applicant” since the arrest and conviction … Defendant argues that the plain language of ORS 137.225 “clearly envisions an evidentiary hearing” and points to provisions in which a hearing is mentioned.

Mason v. Griffin-Valade

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 27, 2024

The new section 6 would also establish a panel to review applicants for the commission, which would iden- tify a pool of qualified candidates, of which a third would be members of the largest political party, a third would … It would establish quorum and voting rules. It would establish specific criteria for the drawing of legislative districts.

Smith v. City of Portland

108 Or. App. 215 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 24, 1991

The facility will not provide “care,” and it qualifies as an ICF. Before LUBA, petitioner also contended that the city’s findings did not adequately explain the basis for its decision, as required by ORS 227.173(2). … LUBA agreed but held that the “evidence ‘clearly supports’ a determination that the proposed shelter will not provide ‘care * * * as defined in [PCC] 33.12.615.’ ” Therefore, LUBA affirmed the decision pursuant to ORS 197.835

State Ex Rel. Eckles v. Livermore

72 Or. App. 650 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 20, 1985

should be organized under common regulations which would permit any group of persons wishing to do so to effect incorporation without special application or special favor, and would exclude sectional distinctions and local immunities … The Port of Portland, supra, establishing and creating the Port of Columbia. In Farrell v.

Smith v. Dept. of Corrections

301 Or. App. 299 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 11, 2019

Petitioner is obligated to “allege such facts as are necessary to establish that the court has jurisdiction to act.” State ex rel Sweere v. Crookham, 289 Or 3, 7, 609 P2d 361 (1980). … He is required to, “at a minimum, put forth a non- conclusory explanation or argument as to why the writing in question qualifies as a rule as defined in ORS 183.310(9).” Smith v.

Meyer v. Harvey Aluminum

263 Or. 487 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1972

Diamond Alkali Company, 93 Idaho 32 , 454 P2d 69 (1969), contains opinions supporting both the view that the farmer is qualified and that he is not qualified. … We established that 10 cents a pound was a fair price for number 1 peaches. * “Q * * * In 1962 did you know what the price for peaches was?