Case law

Peterson v. State Compensation Department

257 Or. 369 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1970

We think the legislature in 1951 clearly intended that only those workmen who, after their claims had been rejected, established their right to compensation were entitled to attorney fees paid as an administrative expense … In order to qualify a workman had to prevail over a commission order rejecting his claim.

Yeakle v. City of Portland

322 F. Supp. 2d 1119 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 26, 2004

Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 166, 169 , 112 S.Ct. 1827 , 118 L.Ed.2d 504 (1992), the Supreme Court, in rejecting qualified immunity for private defendants, specifically left open the question of whether private defendants who had … no entitlement to qualified immunity, could assert good faith and/or probable cause as an affirmative defense.

Smith v. City of Dalles

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 4, 2021

Defendants’ argument is rejected because clearly established law for qualified immunity does not require the same facts. … Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 514-16 (1994) (holding that the appellate court must review qualified immunity judgment de novo and resolve whether the federal right was clearly established in light of “its full knowledge of its

Maher v. United States

23 F. Supp. 810 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 16, 1938

This phrase was used not to make a dichotomy between these types of service, but to mark clearly the all embracing purpose of Congress. … must go further and find whether or not the applicant qualifies under Section 307.

Wood v. Baldwin

158 Or. App. 98 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 13, 1999

Thus, to establish the admissibility of exculpatory hearsay statements under that exception, the proponent must establish three elements: “(1) The declarant must be ‘unavailable’ to testify as defined under OEC 804(1); (2 … See Schutte, 146 Or App at 102-03 (“[A] qualifying statement need not be a confession to a crime” but must “tend” to subject the declarant to criminal liability.) (emphasis in original).

Wolfe v. Brown

294 Or. App. 800 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 15, 2018

That is, in Prete , because the district court did not clearly err in finding that the plaintiffs in that case failed to establish that Article IV, section 1b, "significantly diminishes the pool of potential circulators, … Many persons interested in qualifying a measure for the Oregon ballot had told Day that the cost was too prohibitive.

Nixon

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 2, 2025

Third and finally, a court must dismiss a complaint on immunity grounds once it has "sufficient information to make a determination" that defendants are entitled to absolute or qualified immunity. Chavez v. … Sept. 25, 2025) (holding that a claim arising out of a judge's "decision not to set aside [the plaintiff's] child support judgment[] is clearly barred by judicial immunity").

State v. O'Key

321 Or. 285 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1995

Daubert, 509 US at_, 113 S Ct at 2795 , 125 L Ed 2d at 480 . 18 The Court first focused on the language of FRE 702, which clearly contemplates some degree of regulation in the admission of expert testimony concerning “scientific … Moreover, no particular reason of logic or good sense exists to immunize particular areas or principles simply on the basis of longevity or the fact that their introduction antedated imposition of the new standard.

Olympia Sauna Compania Naviera, S.A. v. United States

670 F. Supp. 1498 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 14, 1987

The amendments’ effect was to extend the waiver of sovereign immunity under the FTCA to cases brought against the United States under the SIAA. United States v. … It states that the Manual did not establish standards for the new grid system, but rather it was one of the Manual’s purposes to establish such standards.

Kerns v. Couch

141 Or. 147 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 2, 1932

Devers: Objected to on the ground that the plaintiff has not shown himself qualified to testify *155 on such matter and for the further reason it is an effort to establish damages, the same damages that the plaintiff sought … to establish in presenting her claim to the county court and that tribunal passed upon the matter and from the findings of that court she did not appeal.

Rae v. Morgan

125 Or. 644 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1928

We believe that this evidence was clearly admissible. … From this it is clear that when the notice was inserted in the “Klamath News” it was a publication qualified under the statutes to publish the notice.

Kay v. David Douglas School District No. 40

79 Or. App. 384 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 21, 1986

Such a defense is not relevant to a challenge under the Establishment Clause. Engel v. … Clearly, “the natural right to worship Almighty God,” protected by Article I, section 2, includes the right not to worship.

Voight v. Nyberg

218 Or. 383 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1959

The foregoing instruction was clearly erroneous. … It seems to be a well established rule of law that the driver of a passing car is under no obligation to make certain that his clearly audible signal is heard and understood by the driver of the overtaken vehicle.

Hurst v. W. J. Lake & Co.

146 Or. 500 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1934

To establish the custom, plaintiff called as a witness E. W. Lazell, who qualified as an expert chemical engineer with experience in Portland since 1900. … clear that the contract read a minimum 50%, which meant just exactly that, for we would have to get some material under 50% at the discount in order to be compensated based on the price we paid you. ’ ’ This letter would clearly

State v. B. P.

229 Or. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 2009

In addition to the information regarding threats to Bill Gates, ITT employees, and W, the questioning and testimony also established that B. … P. has a mental disorder, that he would not voluntarily participate in treatment, and that he did not qualify for conditional release.

Bell v. Morales

207 Or. App. 326 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 16, 2006

Accordingly, defendant’s offer of $2,584 clearly represented new money of $2,088. … Considering the protections afforded both parties by statute, we conclude that plaintiff has not established that defendant’s offer was in some way improperly “conditional.”

State v. Carmody

50 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1907

The reasons which impel us to this conclusion are so clearly and forcibly stated by Mr. Justice Orton, in Briffitt v. State, 58 Wis. 39 ( 16 N. W. 39 : 46 Am. … for at the bar, in a saloon or hotel, the bartender would know at once, from the common use of the word, that strong beer—a spirituous or intoxicating beer—was wanted; and, if any other kind was wanted, the word would be qualified

Byrne Trucking, Inc. v. Employment Division

32 Or. App. 229 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 1978

. *235 THE INITIAL PREMISE ORS 657.040 states that in order to qualify for the (2)(a) exemption, an individual must be "customarily engaged in an independently established business * * In Republic, my brethren state that … In Kirkpatrick , the court clearly stated what was intended by the term "risk capital.”

Joseph Hydro Associates, Ltd. v. Department of Revenue

10 Or. Tax 277 · Oregon Tax Court · Aug 1, 1986

Norman’s testimony that these kinds of projects are “driven” by the income tax benefits is clearly true. … Income tax consequences to the seller should not be considered in establishing the amount that would justly compensate the owner for loss of the property.

Kimball v. Little River Lumber Co.

44 Or. App. 497 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 11, 1980

We find that the plaintiffs presented evidence of lost profits which was not "clearly insufficient” to establish their lost profits claim. … We do not find plaintiffs’ evidence to be "clearly insufficient” to establish lost profits. The motions for nonsuit on that basis were properly denied.