Case law

Ben Rybke Co. v. Royal Globe Insurance

293 Or. 513 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1982

The other objective, which is clearly discernible, was to protect an injured party from being misled into believing that a limitation period upon his claim is no longer applicable because the insurer is liable for the claim … the death, injury or destruction” is deemed ambiguous for failure to exclude insured persons absolutely, the constructional scales are tipped by reference to the latter two statutes. 3 Their terms, while also not entirely immune

Deupree v. State

173 Or. App. 623 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 25, 2001

However, an abutting property owner’s common-law right to public road access is qualified by the state’s inherent power to protect the public safety, convenience, and welfare. Gruner, 96 Or App at 697 . … regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Holger v. Irish

113 Or. App. 290 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 3, 1992

Although May endorses the surgeon accountability doctrine, the endorsement is qualified. The holding states an exception, and the opinion also questions the underpinnings of the doctrine. … It suggests both that the abolition of charitable immunity for hospitals and the increasing complexity of modern operating procedures that render total control by a surgeon over all assistants’ activities incompatible with

State v. Bolger

31 Or. App. 565 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 7, 1977

The testimony, however, did establish that defendant had been in the neighborhood the day of the night that the words were painted. … The inference that the writing was done as revenge for the arrest of defendant’s friend is clearly permissible. The argument in this case was in response to defendant’s argument that no motive had been shown.

Wider

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 24, 2026

To qualify for in forma pauperis status, a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the claims the litigant seeks to pursue are not frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), 1915 … Rather, the plaintiff must establish that this harm is likely. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).

State v. Baker

50 Or. 381 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1907

The act in question is not to establish or change the age of majority of females, but for the purpose of promoting good morals and sound policy. … the question that, as the law permits males of full age to enter and remain in a saloon and denies such right to women, it is in violation of the constitutional provision guaranteeing to every citizen equal privileges and immunities

State v. Headings

140 Or. App. 421 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 17, 1996

Consequently, she believed that appellant would qualify for food stamps if she were to apply again. Appellant has received mental health treatment at Northeast Mental Health, and more recently at Kaiser Permanente. … All that that testimony establishes is that appellant relied on her daughter to deal with the loss of the daughter’s food stamps.

State v. Brown

28 Or. 147 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1895

The trial judge heard their testimony, had an opportunity to observe their manner, and deemed them qualified to sit in the case. … The court in the instructions complained of did not assume even that the facts had been established.

Lechuga v. Crosley

228 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 10, 2002

To qualify for federal funds, the state was required to operate a program that conformed with federal guidelines, as set forth in Title IV-D. … The court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Congress intended to create a federal right for the benefit of Plaintiffs either through Section 602 or the regulation adopted thereunder.

Parks v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon

347 Or. 374 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 24, 2009

The Court of Appeals was wrong to use that supposed failure as a basis for treating the exclusion of plaintiffs’ decontamination costs as an established legal fact. … That telephone call qualified as “proof of loss” for purposes of such a claim.

Agan v. United States National Bank

227 Or. 619 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1961

To qualify -as beneficiaries of the trusts in question plaintiffs must prove that the settlors intended to create an enforceable equitable interest in the class which plaintiff purport to represent. 1 Restatement of Trusts … But to avoid the horn of the dilemma presented by the rule against perpetuities, plaintiffs argue that the charitable character of the trust so affects the alleged gift to the class that the immunity from the rule against

STATE Ex Rel MADDEN v. CRAWFORD

207 Or. 76 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1956

Under the constitution of this state the governor only is empowered to fill such vacancy by appointment, which appointment shall expire when a successor shall have been duly elected and qualified. … In his specially concurring opinion ( 132 Or 217 ), Chief Justice Coshow clearly and correctly pointed this out.

Collins v. Commission

3 Or. Tax 275 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 25, 1968

Since no citizen enjoys immunity from that burden, its retroactive imposition does not necessarily infringe due process, and to challenge the present tax it is not enough to point out that the taxable event, the receipt of … However, the 1967 amendment by its terms was clearly intended to be retroactive to July 1, 1965.

State v. Taylor

315 Or. App. 608 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 17, 2021

Thus, we conclude that the evidence does not qualify as plan evidence under a “preparatory step” or “trial run” theory. … As the court explained, ‘[a] simple, unremarkable single instance of prior conduct probably will not qualify, but a complex act requiring several steps, particularly pre- meditated, may well qualify.’ Id.”

Jacobson v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 15, 2025

ORS § 90.323 (along with ORS § 90.324) establish the amount and frequency with which a landlord may increase a tenant’s rent. … Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (to state a claim under Title II or § 504, a plaintiff must first show they are a qualified individual with a disability).

Boaters Rights Association v. Early

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 5, 2024

The Act establishes a dedicated funding source by imposing an excise tax on boating related items such as fishing equipment and motorboat fuel. … The Marine Board, authorized by statute, promulgated rules that established “slow-no wake” zones around docks and floating homes, established hours for motorboat usage, and created dedicated areas for wake surfing.

Portland Comm. v. Multnomah County Assr., Tc-Md 091615c (or.tax 2-9-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Feb 9, 2011

Plaintiff clearly missed the one-year outside deadline. … CONCLUSION The court concludes that Plaintiffs appeal is untimely and that Plaintiff has failed to establish good and sufficient cause for the untimely appeal.

Sanchez v. State

272 Or. App. 226 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 2015

However, the car was clearly sticking out into the roadway. (Ex 116) It was a hazard. Petitioner argues that Mr. Roloff and his son could have towed the car. … Indeed, the evidence shows that the vehicle was clearly protruding onto the lane of travel.

United States v. Colasanti

282 F. Supp. 3d 1213 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 26, 2017

July 21, 2017) ("The only right recognized in Johnson was established in its holding."). … Since the Supreme Court has clearly held that the commentary to the mandatory Guidelines is authoritative, Stinson v.

Fritz v. Norblad

566 F. Supp. 1459 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 14, 1983

A cause of action under § 1983 extends to deprivations of such privileges and immunities as are secured by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hague v. … The law establishes a property interest in public employment if it restricts the grounds on which an employee may be discharged — for example, if discharge can only be for “just cause.”