Case law

Branch v. McCormick's Estate

72 Or. 608 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1914

The contention seems to be that the law-making power, proceeding under this clause, may establish any number and kind of courts within its discretion without let or hindrance. … In at least the respect mentioned, the act of the legislative assembly in question is clearly a transgression upon the restriction of the Constitution, and for this reason, if for no other, the judgment of the Circuit Court

Nordbye v. BRCP/GM ELLINGTON

246 Or. App. 209 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 26, 2011

The Department is an agency established under state statute. See ORS 456.555(1). … The oral advice of a federal employee, given on an ad hoc basis to a state agency, simply does not qualify.

State v. Mallory

213 Or. App. 392 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 20, 2007

According to the state, defendant did not clearly argue to the trial court that a jury had to find that any predicate offense arose from a criminal episode separate from the offenses for which enhanced sentences were imposed … the Court concluded that the disputed fact— that is, whether the prior conviction was for “generic burglar/’ — was “too far removed from the conclusive significance of a prior judicial record” to say that the judge was clearly

West v. Bowers

11 Or. App. 364 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 1972

One can be a “resident” for voting purposes without having the intent to remain permanently, see., 35 Op Att’y Gen 933 (Or 1971), which is necessary to qualify for “resident” tuition rates. … We hold that petitioner did exhaust all clearly available remedies.

Stebco Inc. v. Gillmouthe

189 Or. 427 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1950

Taxation of all property is the general rule and the burden rests upon any owner who claims exemption to prove clearly the exception upon which he depends. … H. 286, held immune from New Hampshire taxation logs which had been cut in Vermont and which were destined for Connecticut.

Livingston v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.

567 F. Supp. 2d 1265 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 6, 2008

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of the ADA by an employer, a plaintiff must prove: 1) that he or she is a qualified individual with a disability; 2) that he or she has suffered an adverse employment … This conclusion rejects the proposition that “driving” by itself qualifies as a major life activity.

Northstar Broadcasting, Inc. v. Tacher Co.

60 Or. App. 579 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 1982

The statute required a custodian or other qualified witness to testify to the record’s identity and the mode of its preparation. … Plaintiff’s exhibit clearly showed expenses for what it termed “regional advertising,” which *586 included advertisers throughout the Willamette Valley.

State v. Seay

347 Or. App. 180 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 19, 2026

Although the facts underlying defendant’s guilty plea would have qualified as first-degree abuse of corpse had the statute existed at the time, he was in fact not con- victed of that crime. … ORS 137.225(6) (f) establishes that the set aside statute does not apply to convictions for any sex crime, apart from a few limited exceptions not applicable to this case.

Fields v. Fields

139 Or. 41 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1931

That the provisions of paragraph 3 of the testator’s will conveyed a fee simple title to Lillie Maud Fields, his wife, is fully established by our code and by a number of court decisions. In the case of Lytle et al. v. … A trust is created if it clearly appears that the words were used in an imperative sense; but this only where the testator’s desires can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, the subject and the object being clear.

United States Ex Rel. Sutton v. Reynolds

564 F. Supp. 2d 1183 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 7, 2007

The Ninth Circuit has fashioned a four-part test to establish a claim under either section of the Act. … Clearly, the amount of rent Defendant intended to collect from Plaintiff was relevant to HAP’s decision to enter into the Contract with Defendant.

Perry v. Department of Revenue

14 Or. Tax 395 · Oregon Tax Court · Nov 3, 1998

Taxpayer’s motor home clearly qualifies as a dwelling unit in that it is a “mobile home” or similar property. … Consequently, except for those professionals who have established their status by actually earning income, writers are required to capitalize their expenses until income is earned from the writing to offset those expenses

Frank v. Kotek

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 17, 2025

Further, even if the claims were not time-barred, because the Attorney Defendant was not acting as an agent of the State and the State Defendants are subject to prosecutorial, sovereign, and qualified immunity, Plaintiff … Specifically, Defendant Blixseth asserts prosecutorial immunity, while Defendants Hammond and Burreson claim qualified immunity. Id.

Smejkal v. Rice

273 Or. 687 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1975

The pleadings in that action are clearly available for that purpose but the proof is not limited to them. … Also, at page 580, § 11.20: “In order to resolve such ¡an ambiguity [in a *698 verdict] the proponent of the former judgment may put in evidence any parts of the former record and oral testimony of a qualified observer (extrinsic

Kalishman v. Department of Revenue

8 Or. Tax 440 · Oregon Tax Court · Nov 6, 1980

That the income limitations of ORS 308.372 should be waived for pre-mature [sic] perennial crops if the property otherwise qualifies under ORS 215.203. "9. … It is a long-established rule of statutory construction that words of common use are to be given their natural, plain and obvious meaning. Blalock v.

Cooper v. Robert G. Rust, Jr., D.M.D., PC

343 Or. App. 390 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 2025

OAR 839-006-0206(4) 4 establishes that request- ing accommodation is part of an “interactive process,” which places burdens on both the employee and the employer. … Under Oregon law, employers may not fail to accom- modate a “qualified individual with a disability.” ORS 659A.112(2)(e). Qualified means that a person “with or without 400 Cooper v. Robert G.

Maurer v. Harris

502 F. Supp. 320 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 21, 1980

The Eighth Circuit has clearly indicated that when a Social Security claimant has met his burden of proof with evidence indicating that he is unable to return to his prior employment, said burden transfers to the Secretary … Weinberger, 512 F.2d 664 (4th Cir. 1975)] is the recognition that the ALJ is not qualified to provide affirmative vocational evidence.

Krein v. Szewc

287 Or. App. 481 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2017

Defendants answered by asserting the farm use immunity defense as an affirmative defense. … , namely when and to what extent the defendants had a qualifying farm operation.”

Perry v. Rein

215 Or. App. 113 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 26, 2007

It is well established that a termination resulting from a settlement among the parties is not a favorable termination as to any of those parties. … Moreover, the policy *131 favoring settlement does not somehow immunize parties who otherwise bring actions without probable cause and with malice; otherwise, it would essentially license extortion, provided that an appropriate

Yamhill County v. Ludwick

294 Or. 778 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 3, 1983

Lintz, 101 Ariz 448, 420 P2d 923, 927 (1966), the Arizona Supreme Court considered the term “legally established” lot: “It is generally recognized that the act of recording one’s subdivision plat legally establishes each … The statutes in force at the time Hemstreet sold the tracts in question clearly required that the subdivision be approved and the plat be recorded before any lots could be sold. ORS 92.016, 92.025.

State v. Higley

236 Or. App. 570 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 11, 2010

The equal privileges and immunities clause is also implicated when vague laws give unbridled discretion to judges and jurors to decide what is *574 prohibited in a given case, for this results in the unequal application of … Clearly, this testimony demonstrates that the deputy subjectively believed that defendant was driving a vehicle in violation of ORS 815.250(1). The evidence also demonstrates that his belief was objectively reasonable.