Case law

Baker v. Lane County

37 Or. App. 87 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 6, 1978

The simple answer to the first argument is that the issue of plaintiff’s status at the time of his injury was clearly presented in the earlier appeal. … Plaintiff next argues that defendant failed to establish that the proffered evidence of lack of previous accidents related to similar conditions.

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.

P. O. B. v. Harny

318 Or. App. 557 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 23, 2022

Here, nothing in the statutory scheme clearly limits a petitioner’s proof at hearing to the contacts identified in the complaint. … Souders, 334 Or 122, 128, 46 P3d 729 (2002) (concluding “that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish all the elements required to obtain an SPO”).

Clark v. Wells Fargo Bank

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2021

Defendants contend that these claims are barred by the statute of limitations, prosecutorial and qualified immunity, claim and issue preclusion, and the Rooker- Feldman doctrine. … This conduct may be characterized as part of Hasselman’s “administrative or investigative functions,” which fall outside the scope of prosecutorial immunity and for which “only qualified immunity is available.”

Rivera v. Perlo Construction, LLC

336 Or. App. 307 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 20, 2024

In Gordineer, the employee brought a declaratory judgment action in circuit court to establish that his employer had committed fraud when she testified at his workers’ compensation hearing; specifically, he sought to establish … Finally, they have not argued that a qualified privilege should apply, which would provide additional protection from aiding and abetting liability.

Johnson v. Sunriver Resort Ltd. Partnership

252 Or. App. 299 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 12, 2012

Clearly Mr. Ohara failed to take proper action, which resulted in the default judgment being entered against the Defendant. Although Mr. … For the same reason, we reject plaintiff’s argument that Burke establishes a “higher standard” for insurance agents.

Gooderham v. Adult & Family Services Division

64 Or. App. 104 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 3, 1983

The retroactive application of the regulation is clearly prejudicial and unreasonable when viewed in that light. … each class of recipients (ADC, GA, OAA, etc.) to the weighted average of the food allowance for this same class to establish a floor figure.

Marlin v. T'Vault

1 Or. 77 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1854

Clearly not, as any man of common sense must see. … No land districts were ever laid out, or land offices .established by Congress, where lands might be entered.

Quinn v. Walters

320 Or. 233 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1994

The majority, in addressing the factual issue, holds that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that Child qualified as an “Indian child” at any time relevant to this proceeding. … The ICWA is clearly concerned with the best interests of the “Indian child.”

Antin v. Union High School District No. 2

130 Or. 461 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1929

discharge the men whom he was compelled to use might be a good reason why he should be holden to exercise reasonable care in their selection, but we do not think that under the circumstances of this case it is sufficient to establish … Its exact limits have not been very clearly defined. Perhaps it includes Elder v. Bemis, 2 Met. [Mass.] 599, and Hawks v.

Rogers v. Meridian Park Hospital

93 Or. App. 533 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 26, 1988

Expert testimony also established that medical opinion differs regarding the appropriate time to remove the tube after surgery is completed. … Plaintiff might have developed more clearly the basis for exception, but the exception was sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. Mariman v. Hultberg, 82 Or App 535 , 728 P2d 919 (1986).

Dept. of Human Services v. K. B. L.

340 Or. App. 482 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 14, 2025

Here, no such foundation was established. Reardon did not create the reports or have any insight into how the reports were generated. … M was able to clearly articulate how he was injured, and those state- ments matched the injury and were made near the time of the injury.

South Seattle Auto Auction Inc. v. Western Casualty & Surety Co.

41 Or. App. 707 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 27, 1979

Intent that it be acted upon — The evidence clearly establishes this element. "6. Plaintiff’s ignorance of the falsity — The evidence is clear Plaintiff was unaware of the intent of Barber. "7. … Defendant argues that plaintiff must establish a fraudulent intent at the time the vehicle was purchased in Seattle and that the subsequent conduct of Barber does not in any way establish fraud at that time.

State v. Meiser

308 Or. App. 570 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 21, 2021

That caused him to lose the ability to think clearly and cre- ated memory problems.5 Before the shooting incident, he drank alcohol. … After reviewing the evidence in that light, we conclude that a rational factfinder could have determined that defendant failed to establish that his asserted incapacity was the result of schizophrenia, defen- dant’s qualifying

Cox Ex Rel. Cox v. State

191 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 26, 2003

The framers revealed their understanding (or mis understanding) of equality clearly and often. … Here, for example, defendant maintains that plaintiffs have not established that students in other districts are receiving the privilege of a better education; at most, the record establishes that their district's system

Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer School District

185 Or. App. 649 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 8, 2003

“(d) Agency denial of a motion for stay is subject to review by the Court of Appeals under such rules as the court may establish.” … The agency functions as more than mere interpreter; it may make rules within the range of discretion established by the statutory terms.” Ross v. Springfield School Dist.

Huitt v. Optum Health Services

216 F. Supp. 3d 1179 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 1, 2016

As noted, in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under § 659A.112 Plaintiff must show, among other things, that she was a qualified individual with a disability at the time of termination. … Such expansion is clearly at odds with the tort’s original construct, “to fill a remedial gap where a discharge would be left unvindicated,” Dunwoody v. Handskill Corp., 185 Or.

State Highway Commission v. Assembly of God, Pentecostal

230 Or. 167 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1962

No effort was made by defendants to lay a foundation to qualify Mr. … 'Clearly he was not competent to testify as to the opinion of others and plaintiff was entitled to have it made clear that the witness’s opinion was solely his own.

State v. Freeland

295 Or. 367 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1983

As the Voters Pamphlet clearly stated, however, the objective of the 1974 amendment was to promote “fairness” as well as “efficiency.” … ad hoc, use of discretion that article I, section 20, imposes on the administration of other privileges or immunities.

State v. Meiser

372 Or. 438 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 13, 2024

I agree with the majority opinion that the “sufficient by itself” test adopted by the Court of Appeals to establish that causal link was not what the legislature intended, and I agree with the majority opinion that, to establish … The legislative history of that stat- ute does not clearly explain what causal link the legislature intended, as the majority opinion acknowledges.