Case law

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.

Bailey v. Rhodes, Adm.

202 Or. 511 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1954

It is well established in this state that if a guest voluntarily rides in an automobile driven by one who he knows, or in the exercise of due care should know, is so intoxicated as to incapacitate him from safely and prudently … Such testimony invades the province of the jury. *524 In the instant case all facts upon which the police officer based his opinion were clearly presented by the evidence: the curve in the highway, the marks on the gravel

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.

Veaux v. Southern Oregon Sales, Inc.

33 F. Supp. 605 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 13, 1940

The statute according to its language sets two years prior to the application upon which the patent is based as the limit of immunity, 35 U.S.C.A. § 31 . … If strict anticipation is not existent, the prior art clearly suggests to the skilled mechanic everything Schmithals taught.

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.

CACV OF COLORADO, LLC v. Stevens

248 Or. App. 624 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 14, 2012

The absence of Oregon law on the imposition of a specific monetary limit on attorney-fee awards cannot establish that Oregon has a fundamental policy against the imposition of such a limit. … That is, to qualify as an ‘other instrument of writing’ within the meaning of [section 3912], a writing would have to evidence a debt.”). 18 For purposes of section 951, Delaware Code Annotated title 5, section 941(4), defines

Giulio v. BV CENTERCAL, LLC

815 F. Supp. 2d 1162 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 6, 2011

The testimony establishes that Dye asked Captain King to arrest everyone involved in the incident, not just the Giulios. … The email clearly establishes that Dye wanted all involved to be prosecuted so that he could do some “damage control” and assure the general public that physical altercations at Bridgeport Village would not be tolerated or

Curry Properties, Inc. v. Coldiron

346 Or. App. 477 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 14, 2026

In April 2023, plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Curry County Circuit Court, seeking to establish an easement over an “existing road” that ran across defendant’s property. … It nevertheless noted that the claim for easement by necessity was “clearly devoid of any legal of factual support.”

State v. Fries

212 Or. App. 220 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 25, 2007

In summary, this court has no authority to immunize defendant for his possession of the controlled substances involved in this case; only the legislature has that authority. … Even if the claim of error qualified as error apparent on the face of the record (which we doubt is the case), we would not, under the circumstances of this case, exercise our discretion to review it.

State v. Horn

57 Or. App. 124 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 1982

We conclude that neither the Commission nor the legislature intended to immunize from prosecution *128 all persons who engage in communication while obstructing traffic. … Defendants argue that the state’s evidence establishes S.W.

Linfoot v. Department of Revenue

4 Or. Tax 489 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 27, 1971

It is clearly of minimal present utility. As has been said, the intention of the legislature is to shield bona fide farm operations from higher valuation “attributable to urban influences or speculative purchases.” … The policy established by the legislature is buttressed by such a conclusion.

Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc.

994 F. Supp. 1242 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 19, 1998

Eliminating the curriculum or age-eligibility requirements for high school athletes clearly changes the fundamental nature of such competition. … Under the category of Blind Golfers, the pamphlet provides: Definition of “Coach” The status of the coach and the duties which he may perform should be defined clearly.

Sweeney v. SMC Corp.

178 Or. App. 576 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 9, 2002

But that argument overlooks the fact that the range of claims coming within the Lemon Law is not dictated solely by what qualifies as a new passenger motor vehicle. … Because both ORS 646.375 and ORS 646.325 refer to “the remedy under” ORS 646.315 to ORS 646.375, and because that language in ORS 646.325 clearly means only the remedy available to a consumer under ORS 646.335(1) based on

SAIF Corp. v. Walker

330 Or. 102 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 16, 2000

As its text clearly demonstrates, the 1995 version of ORS 656.273(1) requires something different: Proof, based upon medical evidence supported by objective findings, of a worsening of the underlying condition itself, not … On remand, the Board must weigh the facts pertaining to all the elements of an aggravation claim under ORS 656.273(1) (1995) — including causation — to determine whether claimant qualifies for an aggravation award.

Bundy v. NuStar GP LLC

371 Or. 220 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 7, 2023

Meanwhile, he offered one suggestion: “There is one suggestion that I would make, though, and that is that the Supreme Court didn’t clearly spell out the procedure for a worker who wants to pursue this kind of … True, in Horton, this court overruled the remedy-clause analysis announced in Smothers. 359 Or at 218-19 (expressly over- ruling Smothers and noting that “Smothers clearly erred in 244

Weith v. Klein

136 Or. 201 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1931

Confronted with this situation we held that the complaint was immune from attack by demurrer, but that the cause should be remanded to the circuit court so that amendments could be made to the pleading which would justify … In the instant appeal, while it may be doubtful whether the complaint alleges any facts cognizable in a court of equity, its recitals clearly constitute a cause of action, possibly seven such causes.

State v. Bishop

49 Or. App. 1023 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 1980

However, the state granted the witness testimonial immunity, thereby eliminating any Fifth Amendment obstacle. State v. … "In order to establish criminally negligent homicide, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following: "First, that the crime was committed in Tillamook County, Oregon.

State v. Young

74 Or. 399 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1915

in the statute is, generally speaking, to take or exclude from the operation of the statute certain things or subjects which would otherwise be included therein (see Bouvier’s Law Dictionary), and, where the exception is clearly … Ed. 791 ): “The office of a proviso, generally, is either to except something from the enacting clause, or to qualify or restrain its generality, or to exclude some possible ground of misinterpretation of it, as extending

Kirk v. United States

383 F. Supp. 3d 1140 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 29, 2019

"A party may bring an action against the United States only to the extent that the government waives its sovereign immunity." Valdez v. United States , 56 F.3d 1177 , 1179 (9th Cir. 1995). … The court found that the priest's "alleged sexual assaults on plaintiff clearly were outside the scope of his employment" under the traditional test, but held that the "inquiry does not end there."

Wright v. Oregon Metallurgical Corp.

222 F. Supp. 2d 1224 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 6, 2002

conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims [the prudence requirement]; (C) by diversifying the investments of the plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses, unless under the circumstances it is clearly … Plaintiffs, in fact, establish the contrary.