Case law

State v. Sanchez-Alfonso

238 Or. App. 160 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 2010

In rejecting that argument, the court first reiterated the well-established criteria for the admissibility of scientific evidence. … As a medically trained pediatrician specializing in the field of child abuse treatment for 14 years, Skinner was qualified.

Allen v. County of Jackson

169 Or. App. 116 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 12, 2000

immunities secured by federal law as well. … If that analysis clearly identifies the legislature’s intent, further inquiry is unnecessary. ORS 652.110 to ORS 652.200 pertain to the payment and collection of unpaid wages generally.

Arnold v. Pfizer, Inc.

970 F. Supp. 2d 1106 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 9, 2013

It wrote: “While Buchanan clearly has no formalized education or training in HR practices, I find him qualified to testify about standard HR practices in large organizations on the basis of his experience performing discrimination … The Court agrees with Arnold that Pfizer has failed to establish, as a matter of law, that she was not qualified to perform the essential functions of her job.

State ex rel. v. Siemens

68 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1913

It does not establish any procedure or specify any authority by which this value can be determined. Manifestly that is one of the matters committed to the judgment of the public custodian of funds. … process or proceeding before or by any inferior court, officer, or tribunal may have the decision or determination thereof reviewed for error therein, as in this chapter prescribed, and not otherwise. ’ ’ This language clearly

Wallace & Co. v. Ferguson

70 Or. 306 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1914

The Century Dictionary says this word means: “ To determine, settle; to fix, establish or prescribe authoritatively.” … In the first place, the Constitution of Missouri states that: “No bill except general appropriation bills * * shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title.”

State v. Gonzalez

373 Or. 248 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2025

As we have said, the legislature’s enactment of a particular penalty does not itself establish constitutional proportionality—the courts ultimately must decide whether penalties exceed constitutional limits. State v. … a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature

State v. Cram

176 Or. 577 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1945

Misc. 633, 16 A. (2d) 80, the court said: “To subject a person against his will to a blood test is an assault and battery, and clearly an invasion of his personal privacy. … But if we admit such an encroachment *607 upon the personal immunity of an individual where in principle can we stop?

Hanson v. State of Oregon, Legislative Assembly

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 28, 2024

Legal Framework To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under ORS § 659A.112(1), the plaintiff must show: “(1) she is a qualified individual with a disability … To establish a prima facie case for failure to accommodate, a plaintiff must show: (1) she is a qualified individual; (2) the defendant received adequate notice of the paperwork: because Ye and Rep.

West

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 14, 2026

Plaintiff does allege that he “is a qualified individual with documented disabilities, including Schizophrenia (MH3 code), PTSD, and Opioid Use Disorder (OUD).” Compl. at 3. A. … A Monell claim is a species of § 1983 claim, and, as such, States, their agencies, and their officers acting in an official capacity are immune from suit.

Wolfgang v. Henry Thiele Catering Co.

128 Or. 433 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1929

Even a clearly established negligence may not of itself be a sufficient ground for refusing relief, if it appears that the other party has not been prejudiced thereby. … Even a clearly established negligence may not, of itself, be a sufficient ground for refusing relief, if it appears that the other party has not been prejudiced thereby.”

Buena Dairy Associates v. State Department of Agriculture

25 Or. App. 381 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 17, 1976

The letter read in pertinent part: "(2) Your clients’ adjusted quota established February 1, 1973, shall remain unaffected for a period of 90 days from the date hereof, subject to the following conditions: "(a) Within such … time period, your clients submit, *384 and obtain departmental approval of, applications for transfer of the involved quotas to qualified quota-holding producers, such to be performed in accordance with Oregon regulations

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

Schlumberger Technologies, Inc. v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District

145 Or. App. 12 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 1996

ORS 701.005(2) defines a “contractor” who must register with the Board to include a person who, for purposes that clearly apply here, “submits a bid to construct, alter, repair, add to, subtract from, improve, inspect, move … In this case, plaintiff asserts that Tri-Met violated those statutes in two ways: First, that Tri-Met awarded the contract to S&B when that entity was not a legally qualified bidder.

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.

Klutschkowski v. PeaceHealth

354 Or. 150 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 26, 2013

He did not regard them as absolute in the sense of being immune from change or limitation by the legislature. See Albert W. … Lash, The Origins of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Part I: “Privileges and Immunities” as an Antebellum Term of Art, 98 Geo LJ 1241, 1253 (2010); David Schuman, The Right to “Equal Privileges and Immunities”: A State

Board of Publications of Methodist Church v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 413 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 8, 1963

. *417 PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS Under the commission’s regulation, Reg. 7.080(4), upon which the commission relied in denying the exemption, the plaintiff clearly is not exempt because one of its primary purposes is to finance … To establish its religious character under the tax laws, the plaintiff cites and relies upon a long line of federal decisions interpreting federal statutory language substantially identical to that of ORS 317.080(4).

Newport Church of the Nazarene v. Hensley

161 Or. App. 12 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 2, 1999

The Department attempts to cast Church’s argument as one based on the Establishment Clause, because-Church used in its argument the word “entanglement.” See Lemon v. … Article I, section 20: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.” 5 OAR 471-31-090(1) (1989) provided

School District No. 17 v. Powell

203 Or. 168 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1955

, by vote of the duly qualified electors within the district and proclamation as provided by law” (OES 33.710). … The petitioner alleged that School District No. 17, Sherman County, was so created and established as a municipal corporation.

Coos County v. State

303 Or. 173 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1987

The state has waived its immunity to suits brought to determine title to real property. … In addition, the county judge clearly has the power to convey land, and it was through his failure to direct the tax collector to remove Spaulding from the tax rolls that both Fischer and Spaulding were misled.

United States v. Ernst

857 F. Supp. 2d 1098 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 9, 2012

Defendant’s third argument that he is shielded from federal prosecution by foreign state immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1602 is unfounded. … Although there is a qualified right to select one’s attorney, the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee an indigent criminal defendant the right to appointed counsel of their choice. United States v.