Case law

Goodale Lumber Co. v. Shaw

41 Or. 544 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1902

The law, however, does not require the performance of vain things; and where, as in the present instance, the testimony set out in the bill of exceptions clearly shows the mode adopted to prove a particular fact, and also … The directors, when elected and qualified, shall elect one of their number president: Hill’s Ann. Laws, § 3225.

Sobel v. Board of Pharmacy

130 Or. App. 374 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 1994

that he intentionally misrepresented facts clearly known to him because: “a) [Petitioner’s] testimony that he did not know of the 1972 suspension of his license and pharmacy permit and that he did not read the Stipulated … In an application proceeding, it is the applicant who has the burden of establishing eligibility, qualifications and fitness. See ORS 689.255; ORS 689.265.

State v. Betcher

274 Or. App. 640 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 4, 2015

More than 30 years ago, the Oregon Supreme Court established a non-vouching rule. … But there hasn’t been any evidence that this officer is qualified to give that.”

Fouts v. Hood River

1 L.R.A.N.S. 483 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1905

Only qualified electors are permitted to vote at such elections. Ample provisions are then made for holding elections under the. act. … Clearly, not that the act should be a law or not be, for the law already existed. Indeed, it was not delegated to the people to decide anything.

Wampler v. Palmerton

250 Or. 65 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1968

because it is not rendered for the purpose which gives birth to the immunity. … In the present case, the action of defendants clearly Avas taken to benefit the corporation.

Edwards Farms, Inc. v. Smith Canning & Freezing Co.

197 Or. 57 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1952

It is true that the above testimony was later weakly qualified to the extent that Edwards claimed that such understanding was had on a Saturday a few days before the harvest. … In that case we quoted with approval from Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, 5th ed., § 856b, as follows: “ ‘Even a clearly established negligence may not of itself be a sufficient ground for refusing relief, if it appears that

Guzek v. Board of Parole

325 Or. App. 795 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 10, 2023

Petitioner, thus, failed to establish retroactive application of the statute. … The sentencing court could, and still may, impose up to a 30-year indeterminate sentence if it found that a defendant so qualified. ORS 161.725.

Ladd v. City of Portland

32 Or. 271 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1898

Under the power thus delegated, the board of trustees of East Portland, in 1883, made a full improvement of Fifth street in front of plaintiffs’ property by building to the established grade an elevated roadway thirty-six … And it may be regarded as equally well settled, though not without protest on the part of the state courts and the earnest dissent of-several of the federal judges, that a contract by the state granting immunity from taxation

Lakhouiri v. Wolke

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 13, 2024

Although the Complaint is somewhat unclear, Plaintiff clearly is dissatisfied with the result of child custody proceedings that occurred in state court. … That absolute immunity applies not only to judges, but also “for advocates and witnesses” involved in the proceedings. Id.

State v. Drown

245 Or. App. 447 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 8, 2011

“There was no evidence that anybody had been in serious health danger by virtue of failing to get immunization. … Making an argument in which defendant joined, Drown’s counsel responded: “Our argument here is that there is no duty which has been produced by way of any evidence, medical or otherwise, and clearly no evidence other than

Jones v. Sinsheimer

107 Or. 491 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1923

I might qualify that and simply say this: That Mr. Sinsheimer was there. I says, ‘Sinehy’ — I have known Mr. Sinsheimer a long time — ‘Have you got any insurance on this proposition?’ … The injury is thoroughly established and it is admitted that the defendant’s automobile was a factor in the affair.

In re Schatz

161 F. 237 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 7, 1908

period of at least one year immediately preceding the date of the filing of his peti *238 tion; that they each have personal knowledge that the petitioner is a person of good moral character, and that he is in every way qualified … I do not see how the government can be prejudiced by such a practice, and it is clearly in consonance with the plainest and simplest interpretation of the statute.

State v. Branstetter

332 Or. 389 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2001

In fact, this court’s case law establishes that “separateness” in some sense is a necessary attribute of a special statutory proceeding. … The statutory context clearly demonstrates that the forfeiture proceedings and the criminal action are not of a piece.

Wilson v. Smurfit Newsprint Corp.

197 Or. App. 648 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 23, 2005

The Supreme Cotut cases, then, establish that an action is willful if it is fully knowing, intentional, and voluntary. Clearly, a malicious action or one taken in bad faith qualifies. … A reasonable lack of knowledge of those historical facts immunizes the employer from penalties.

Walden v. United States

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 4, 2025

Plaintiff has established that she has minimal income and assets. Accordingly, the Court grants her application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. … Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against the United States are “clearly baseless” and must be dismissed. Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. B.

State Ex Rel. Oregon Consumer League v. Zielinski

60 Or. App. 654 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 1982

Clearly, appointing a person to the Board of Agriculture is an executive function. … ORS 696.405(1) provides: "The Real Estate Board is established within the Department of Commerce.

Carrier v. Hicks

316 Or. 341 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 21, 1993

Plaintiff was injured by an automobile driven by a customer of the tavern, Morgan, soon after Morgan left defendants' establishment. … A jury trial of the claim against the tortfeasor, notwithstanding the insurance payment, is clearly contemplated by motor vehicle insurance statutes.

State v. Partee

32 Or. App. 117 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 16, 1978

Gallatin also testified that he was aware that he could have received a long prison sentence if convicted of those crimes, and he admitted that he had been promised immunity with respect to all the crimes in return for his … At that point, the court ruled that defendant could not use Gallatin’s preliminary hearing testimony to establish a prior juvenile adjudication involving auto theft to impeach Gallatin.

Administrator of Veterans' Affairs v. U. S. National Bank

191 Or. 203 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1951

The qualifying words characterize old law to be changed rather than a new subject of new law. … That section provides: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, *222 upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

Sullivan v. Multnomah County

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 17, 2021

immunity from damages for 16 civil liability if his conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or 17 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … a prisoner’s clearly 18 established rights.