Case law

Toney v. Toney

84 Or. 310 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 22, 1917

Do the circumstances of this case clearly rebut the presumption that plaintiff intended to give the property in dispute to appellant? … The evidence clearly shows that plaintiff remained ignorant of the contents and effect of this deed for months after its execution.

State v. Bowman

373 Or. 213 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2025

Rule 703 in turn, together with Rule 702, describe special rules that govern the testimony of a qualified expert. … But, Rule 602 notwithstanding, it is unnecessary to endorse that expanded concept of “personal knowledge” to conclude that the evidence code clearly per- mits experts to testify to a matter within the scope of their “scientific

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.

Roberts v. Springfield Utility Board

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 9, 2021

immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

City of La Grande v. Public Employes Retirement Board

281 Or. 137 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1978

There a state law requiring a city to establish a civil service *146 system, administered by a prescribed city commission, was defended on the ground that it applied to all cities. … In a city, not more than 15 percent of the qualified voters may be required to propose legislation by the initiative, and not more than 10 percent of the qualified voters may be required to order a referendum on legislation

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

Dept. of Human Services v. J. M. R.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 2, 2024

Second, she argues that the juvenile court plainly erred by admitting expert testimony and evalua- tions from two witnesses without requiring the department to establish a sufficient basis for qualifying those witnesses as … Preservation principles require “a party to explain its objection clearly enough for the opposing party, and the trial court, to understand the issue and either avoid an error, or correct an error if one has occurred.”

State v. Hughes

344 Or. App. 648 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 13, 2025

We review whether a defendant established substantial prejudice for legal error. Id. Here, we conclude that defendant failed to establish a case-specific theory of substantial prejudice supported by the record. … Worsham, 373 Or 739, 748, 571 P3d 759 (2025) (“[I]t is gen- erally impossible for a trial court’s failure to give an unre- quested custom supplemental instruction to qualify as plain error.”

Kosmecki v. Portland Stevedoring Co.

190 Or. 85 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1950

. *94 The burden of proof rested upon thé defendant to establish the facts upon which its claim to immunity is predicated: Inwall v. Transpacific Limber Co., 165 Or. 560 , 108 P. 2d 522 , and Brown v. … Clearly, the term “premises” should not be confined within a small perimeter, but should be extended to the entire area where the work was in progress.

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.

Southern Pacific Co. v. Brown

207 Or. 222 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1956

The word “usually” as used is a qualifying term. … The performance of “light repairs” at such a roundhouse or shop is merely incidental to the principal purposes of such establishments.

State v. Hughes

344 Or. App. 648 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 13, 2025

We review whether a defendant established substantial prejudice for legal error. Id. Here, we conclude that defendant failed to establish a case-specific theory of substantial prejudice supported by the record. … Worsham, 373 Or 739, 748, 571 P3d 759 (2025) (“[I]t is generally impossible for a trial court’s failure to give an unrequested custom sup- plemental instruction to qualify as plain error.”

State v. Wiltse

373 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 7, 2024

The Court of Appeals then considered whether the instruction “qualified for plain-error review.” Id. … It is the jury’s role to determine whether the state has carried that burden; the jury must find the facts that establish the elements of the crime. Boots, 315 Or at 592.

Ray v. Oregon Ex Rel. Construction Contractors Board (In Re Ray)

355 B.R. 253 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Nov 29, 2006

The movant has the burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). … Accordingly, trial will be held regarding damages, and the defense of qualified immunity by Defendants Smith and Harkins which was alluded to in Defendants’ memo in support.

Walden v. Hernandez

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 28, 2024

As explained further below, the Court finds each of Plaintiffs’ allegations “clearly baseless.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. 1. … Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (“[J]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages[,]” and “is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice[.]”); Stump v.

STATE EX REL. JUV. DEPT. v. Smith

205 Or. App. 152 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 19, 2006

The decision to seek a guardian for purposes of making health care decisions is clearly a "decision concerning [T] of substantial legal significance." … Brad Lechman-Su is qualified, suitable and willing to serve as the guardian[.]"

Maulding v. Clackamas County

27 Or. App. 571 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 29, 1976

Prior to submission of the case to the jury, defendant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the allegations of negligence were all matters of discretion for which the county is immune. … Applying the reasoning of Beglau to the case at bar, we find that this case clearly does not fall within categories (1) or (2).

Bridgeview Vineyards, Inc. v. State Land Board

211 Or. App. 251 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 14, 2007

He stated: “Small-scale gravel removal from salmon-bearing streams is clearly detrimental to the recovery of some of our depressed salmon stocks and anadromous fisheries in many cases. … A work group was established to address their concerns.

Dept. of Human Services v. J. M. R.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 2, 2024

Second, she argues that the juvenile court plainly erred by admitting expert testimony and evalua- tions from two witnesses without requiring the department to establish a sufficient basis for qualifying those witnesses as … Preservation principles require “a party to explain its objection clearly enough for the opposing party, and the trial court, to understand the issue and either avoid an error, or correct an error if one has occurred.”

State v. Bunting

71 Or. 259 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1914

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which it is claimed the act contravenes, declares, inter alia, that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall *262 abridge the privileges or immunities … In order to render a statute invalid by reason of discriminations which are clearly unreasonable, arbi *267 trary, oppressive, or partial, the vice of the law must be apparent upon its face.