Case law

Gander v. Wood

457 F. Supp. 2d 1152 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 13, 2006

For the same reason, I also deny defendants' summary judgment motion on qualified *1157 immunity grounds. The principles enunciated in Graham, supra, and its progeny, such as Deorle v. … Rutherford, were well established at the time of these events.

State v. Oregon Public Employes Union

91 Or. App. 124 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 11, 1988

MacLaren has established bona fide occupational requirements which preclude women from certain nighttime and other shifts. … However, state’s argument ignores the statutory language, which clearly recognizes a different scheme of values — employe representation and collective bargaining — as pre-eminent in connection with the promotion, transfer

Munoz

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 14, 2025

immunity defense1). … Munoz responds to each of Bugher’s individual capacity arguments on the merits. 1 Officials sued in their official capacities are not entitled to a qualified immunity defense. See Brandon v.

Sprague v. Straub

252 Or. 507 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1969

The distinction between a subscription to stock and a purchase of stock is well established. … Although in these cases the character of the fund was examined either in relation to the question of the immunity of the state from suit, or in relation to the applicability of Article XY, § 7, the conclusion that the state

Roberson v. Ellis

58 Or. 219 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1911

The defendant also contends that, the money having been found in the warehouse of which he was the tenant, that fact establishes a qualified property in the defendant as against the plaintiff. … They are clearly distinguishable from the ease in hand.

Goltra v. Penland

45 Or. 254 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1904

This was clearly a reasonable length of time in which to determine whether she would allow or reject it. The court should have so declared as a matter of law, and not left the question for the jury. In Willis v. … Comp. § 722), but his testimony is not of itself sufficient to establish his claim.

State v. Patrick

131 Or. 209 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1929

We arrive at this conclusion without much consideration of the right of Caven to be immune as a witness from incriminating himself. … attention, together with such circumstances of time, places and persons present as to enable him to readily understand the particular statements alluded to by the interrogator, and he then denies making them or .attempts to qualify

Benton v. Department of Revenue

7 Or. Tax 162 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 27, 1977

Since intent must be ascertained from overt acts, the assessor should consider many elements in reaching a conclusion as to whether the use of a particular parcel of land qualifies as farm-vise land. * * *” The provisions … Exhibits introduced by all parties illustrated clearly that the subject tenant housing was located in the orchards.

State v. Megorden

49 Or. 259 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1907

An objection to the question on the ground that the witness was not qualified as an expert was overruled. … Justice Moore has clearly and ably discussed this rule in State v.

Mercy Medical Center, Inc. v. Office of Health Policy

121 Or. App. 587 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 14, 1993

By contrast, the Act provides that an existing entity is required to obtain a certificate of need only if its project exceeds a financial threshold established in the Act. … Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972), the Court said: “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it.

Peterson v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission

21 Or. App. 420 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 19, 1975

However, the change shall not take effect unless it is also approved by the qualified voters if within 45 days after the date of the order: “(a) Written objections to the change signed by not less than 20 percent of the qualified … established that annexation was the clear will of the property owners in the affected territory.

State v. McCarthy

375 Or. 157 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 23, 2026

They establish that an otherwise operable vehicle may be so disassembled or be in such a state of disrepair that, even with reasonable repairs, it no longer qualifies as a vehicle under the statute. … Motor-propelled vehi- cles, sailboats, bnd gliders were clearly included. Buckboards, surreys, and horse-drawn carriages were clearly excluded.

Merrick v. Board of Higher Education

116 Or. App. 258 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 12, 1992

A statute that establishes a content-based restriction on the free expression rights of public employees cannot be *265 sustained under section 8. … Because we hold the statute unconstitutional under Article I, section 8, we need not address the privileges and immunities challenge.

State v. Garcia

74 Or. App. 649 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 7, 1985

There was testimony, including that of the robbers, who had been granted immunity, from which a jury could have found that defendant agreed with the robbers to participate in the crime. 1 In return for a share of the proceeds … In any event, because of the first trial, defendant was clearly on notice of the state’s theory at the second trial. 3 Venue for both conspiracy and “accomplice robbery” would have been proper in the county where the agreement

State v. Woolridge

101 Or. App. 390 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 25, 1990

That kind of conduct is going to get him in harm’s way if not qualify as danger to others. So I feel he should be committed. * * * Those kinds of threats are frightening to people. … We conclude that the state failed to meet the necessary burden of proof to establish appellant’s mental illness.

City of Klamath Falls v. Winters

289 Or. 757 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1980

Court in cases involving constitutional questions, but omitting to make similar provision for the appeal of other municipal court cases involving violations of city ordinances (except to the circuit court), the legislature clearly … It is well established that there is no constitutional right to an appeal. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 US 56, 77 , 92 S Ct 862 , 31 LEd 2d 36 (1972); State v. Endsley, 214 Or 537, 539 , 331 P2d 338 (1958).

Samson v. Brown

310 Or. App. 319 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 31, 2021

The legislature could clearly have so provided if it chose.” … Ballot Measure #4 establishes no new min- imum or maximum sentences.” Voters’ Pamphlet at 18.

Haynie v. Dept. of Rev.

19 Or. Tax 488 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 28, 2008

Accordingly, "disqualification" was understood to occur both because of "bad" acts and because of other causes, which clearly could be the expiration of the statutory period. … Other reasons could clearly include expiration of the special assessment time period. *Page 498 3.

Mora-Contreras v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 30, 2020

to prison officials, was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offense. … established at the time of the events in question and therefore Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Nutbrown v. Munn

311 Or. 328 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 9, 1991

Two statutes, ORS 305.405 and 305.410, establish the basic jurisdiction of the Oregon Tax Court. … This may be due to the fact that all of Taxpayers’ other claims involve state law theories and clearly are subject to the exhaustion requirements of ORS 305.275(4). 6 28 USC § 1341 provides: “The district courts shall not