Case law

Wade v. Creighton

25 Or. 455 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1894

Clifford says: “They placed their names there at- the inception of the note, not as a collateral undertaking, but as joint promisors with the maker, and are as much affected by the consideration paid by the plaintiff, and as clearly … In this view, the reply was inconsistent with the complaint, which upon its face established a different liability.

Portland v. Inman-Poulsen Lum. Co.

66 Or. 86 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1913

McGinn, who was born and has lived all his life in the vicinity of the property in dispute; and his familiarity with its location and the conditions existing upon the ground admirably qualified him to understand the testimony … In 1885, long before the- defendants came into possession of the property, the City of East Portland established all street grades, but did not establish any grades through this particular tract, although establishing them

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. Amoroso

336 Or. App. 732 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 11, 2024

Thus, we must interpret what the word “seal” means in OEC 902 and determine whether the proposed judgment’s stamp qualifies as such. … When the legislature uses legal terminology, we look to its “established legal meaning” in legal dictionaries. Id. (citing Comcast Corp., 356 Or at 296).

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.

City of Portland v. Bureau of Labor & Industries

298 Or. 104 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1984

That being so, the City would have immunity from the "broader" remedies available to an employe under the Equal Pay Act, even though its immunity under the Fair Employment Practices Act might be the same as other employers … Without a more complete statistical analysis of the qualified applicant pool and eligibility requirements for each classification *488 — more than exists in this case — a claim of disparate impact discrimination cannot be

Perdue v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.

213 Or. 596 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1958

It does not qualify the word “affected” by the use of the adverb “adversely.” … There is no reason to believe that the legislature impliedly intended to qualify the circumstances in which it expressly demanded certain minimal behavior.

Elifritz v. Fender

District Court, D. Oregon · May 13, 2020

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. … As a result, the officer defendants did not violate a clearly established right by using deadly force against Elifritz, and they are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Hoke v. May Department Stores Co.

133 Or. App. 410 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 8, 1995

The court intervenes only when it can say that the actor’s conduct clearly meets the standard or clearly falls below it.’ ” Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. … We cannot say, as a matter of law, that defendant’s conduct in investigating the prior complaint clearly meets the standard of reasonableness.

Davis v. State

267 Or. App. 264 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 26, 2014

immunity. … We must ask whether ORS 12.220 “establishes a separate limitation *271 period for commencing an action” or whether it does something else, such as toll or extend the time in which to file an action, provide when an action

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Fadeley

310 Or. 548 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1990

Although many or most lawyers may act with pure motives, viz., to ensure a qualified judiciary and to ensure vigorous public debate, the outside observer cannot but think that the lawyer or potential litigant either expects … Not even the political nature of Primus’ offer entirely immunized her from scrutiny. This case is not like Primus . The Canon here does not sweep so broadly as did the disciplinary rule there.

McWilliams v. Gladden

242 Or. 333 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1965

“THE COURT: Have you been promised any reward or immunity for waiving that right? “THE DEFENDANT: No, I haven’t. “THE COURT: Have you been threatened or coerced into waiving that right? … The law of self-defense or the facts and circumstances requisite to establish that defense. “3. That intoxication is a defense to the ‘premeditation and deliberation’ element of first degree murder. “4.

West v. Jaloff

113 Or. 184 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1924

The evidence in this case clearly establishes the fact that defendant’s said ambulance was giving due notice of its approach by loudly sounding a siren, and I instruct you, as a matter of law, that defendant’s agent and servant … The fifth request was for a directed verdict upon the ground, as stated, that the evidence clearly established certain facts concerning which, in truth, there was room for debate, and would have been a clear invasion of the

City of Eugene v. Miller

119 Or. App. 293 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 1993

Defendant did not have a license and, apparently, had not applied for one. 1 He contends that section 3.338(e) violates the equal protection, the equal privileges and immunities and the free speech provisions of the state … When they are so read, any overbreadth in section 14.24.160 is cured by the variance and exemption procedures that Title 18 establishes.

Murphy v. Kenops

99 F. Supp. 2d 1255 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 16, 1999

immunity argument, cloaked in other terms, is unpersuasive. … This court previously dismissed with prejudice a Bivens claim against federal defendant Kenops due to qualified immunity.

State v. Branstetter

166 Or. App. 286 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 22, 2000

On the other hand, an order denying a motion in the nature of coram nobis did not qualify, because the motion was part of a criminal proceeding. Id. at 6 . … In doing so, we emphasized that the proceeding involved clearly defined parties and was not part of any other judicial proceeding. In State v.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Houchin

290 Or. 433 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1981

In that term he registered for classes that would qualify him for payment of educational benefits by the Veterans’ Administration (VA). In early October the college cancelled a class in which he had previously enrolled. … Such conduct is clearly not within any of the three specific situations described in DR 9-101(A),(B), or (C) and, therefore, *439 does not violate Canon 9. In re Ainsworth, 289 Or 479, 493 , 614 P2d 1127, 1134 (1980).

Mount v. Welsh

118 Or. 568 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1926

However, he practiced no deception in qualifying as a juror. He testified that he knew Dr; Welsh. GL B. … A county is a mere auxiliary of a state government and partakes of the state’s *585 immunity from liability.

Joseph v. Lowery

261 Or. 545 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1972

The cases discussed above clearly indicate that this court has refused to give retroactive application *549 to the provisions of statutes which affect the legal rights and obligations arising out of past actions. … Plaintiff contends that because this court retroactively abolished the tort immunity of charitable institutions, ⑥ we have established the precedent to make the present statute retroactive. The change in Hungerford v.

State v. Robinson

120 Or. 508 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1927

The evidence clearly indicates that Mrs. Adams and the defendant were acting together in negotiating these spurious checks with the intent to defraud the Bank of Sherwood. … Virtually, Section 1964—2, supra, establishes and defines what is tantamount to a presumption.