Case law

In re the Testamentary Trust Under the Will of Stuchell

104 Or. App. 332 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 21, 1990

If and when that happens, his ability to qualify for public assistance will be severely limited. … Clearly, the statute does not go that far.

State v. Clemente-Perez

357 Or. 745 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 17, 2015

The court rejected defendant’s remaining argument that he qualified for the “place of residence” exception as provided in ORS 166.250(2)(b). Id. at 152-58 . … He argues that, had the legislature intended to circumscribe the exception to the bounds of a person’s residential structure, the legislature could have used words that would clearly express such a limitation.

Lane County v. State

104 Or. App. 372 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 21, 1990

Like BOLI, we conclude that reinstatement rights do not arise if the employer establishes that the worker was discharged from his pre-injury position for reasons unrelated to the injury or to his workers’ compensation claim … The issue that was raised there, and to which we confine our discussion, was clearly defined in his pleading: “Plaintiff refused to consider Defendant Ridings for appointment to said position of employment, based upon its

Shaw v. Proffitt

57 Or. 192 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1910

Because of an erroneous survey, establishing the grade, water would not flow through the part first dug. … The word “right” denotes, among other things, “property,” “interest,” “power,” “prerogative,” “immunity,” and “privilege,” and in law is most frequently applied to property in its restricted sense.

Tracy v. Juanto

103 Or. 416 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1922

Durbin, supra: “To be admissible, they must be such as reflect light on or qualify the possession itself, or be so connected therewith as to illustrate its character,” and as illustrative of that rule, tbe court said, “Thus … It is true that the declarations of an agent are insufficient to establish the agency. But the doctrine of agency has nothing to do with the principle con *422 trolling here.

Ogden v. Bureau of Labor

299 Or. 98 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1985

We understand these findings to mean that the employer did not simply choose the older of two qualified applicants for a single opening. … 659.010(2)(a) in order to protect the complainant against the effects of the unlawful practice, but that the “computation assumes that the entire amount of damages became due on the date of applicant’s rejection, which is clearly

Romero-Omana v. Dickison

District Court, D. Oregon · May 5, 2021

A § 1983 plaintiff must establish both causation-in-fact and proximate (i.e., legal) causation. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008). … To qualify for judicial immunity, a 4 - ORDER TO DISMISS judge must have performed “judicial acts” within the scope of his or her jurisdiction. Stump v.

West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc.

360 Or. 650 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 8, 2016

Oregon Auto’s duty to defend was owed to anyone who qualified as an insured under the terms of the policy. … The allegations in the complaint, however, did not clearly indicate whether the injury would be covered.

Imbrie v. Hartrampf

100 Or. 589 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 31, 1921

It is a well-established rule that where an estate in fee is given in one clause of a will in clear and explicit terms, the interest which the devisee thus obtains in the land cannot be taken away or diminished, by any subsequent … It is suggested by the provisions of the twelfth paragraph of the will the estate of Ralph Imbrie may end if he should die without lineal descendants, children or grandchildren, and therefore it is a determinable or qualified

Papworth v. Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development

255 Or. App. 258 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 13, 2013

“The measure is clearly structured to look at a snapshot. It says a claimant’s acquisition [date] is the date the claimant became the owner of the property [as] shown in the deed records. … In addition, regardless of whether a waiver was issued by the state or the county before December 6, 2007, to qualify for a home site approval under this section the claimant must establish that: “(a) The claimant is an owner

Langlotz v. Noelle

179 Or. App. 317 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2002

Further, the subsection immediately following subsection (3)(a) imposes on sheriffs a requirement to “conduct any investigation necessary” to establish that an applicant qualifies. ORS 166.291(3)(b) (emphasis added). … Nothing in subsection (1), however, says or even implies that merely supplying that information qualifies an applicant for a CHL.

Dintleman and Dintleman

340 Or. App. 213 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 30, 2025

That judgment provided that husband’s “military retirement ben- efits shall be equally divided as of the date of marriage to May 15, 2009,” and that the parties “shall cooperate with each other in every respect to cause a Qualified … Specifically, husband argues that he estab- lished excusable neglect under ORCP 71 B(1) because “he received no notice” of the supplemental judgment, “the court records show[ ] no motion or service was made on husband,” and he “clearly

Castleman v. Stryker

107 Or. 48 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1923

commonly known as trade talk, dealer’s talk, seller’s statements, or puffing, do not amount to actionable misrepresentations where the parties deal at arm’s-length, and have equal means of information *58 and are equally qualified … The facts constituting the fraud must be clearly and conclusively established. Circumstances or mere suspicion will not warrant the conclusion of fraud.

In re the Marriage of Dillard

179 Or. App. 24 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 2002

The order then addressed evidence that father had presented and explained why the court determined that none qualified as a substantial change of circumstances. … Because mother clearly apprised the trial court of the issues she intended to raise, however, we consider the motion and resulting ruling as if mother had used the correct label. Falk v.

Birnie v. La Grande

78 Or. 531 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1915

It recites that since the time of the f ormer proceedings the city has adopted a new charter establishing the commission managerial form of government, which provides that all rights, privileges and immunities held and enjoyed … Justice Burnett clearly points out the powers and privileges of the city in proceedings of this character.

Patterson v. Howe

102 Or. 275 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1921

The question of whether another physician, a witness in the case, is qualified to testify, is one of law for the court to decide. 12. 13. … Whitney and the answers to be given by him, was clearly an invasion of the province of the jury.

In Re West

64 B.R. 738 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Sep 3, 1986

In this case, it is sufficient that the Debtor did not exercise dominion over the trust funds in a manner inconsistent with the purpose of the spendthrift trust and the Debtor, the settlor, and the trustee *744 are clearly … Two tests have been established by the courts to determine whether a specific plan falls within the ORS 23.170 exemption. First, the person .granting the trust must be different from the person granted the trust.

Lane v. Kitzhaber

283 F.R.D. 587 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 6, 2012

The CDDPs establish and confirm the rates for individuals’ service needs. Id. … Some of the named plaintiffs are clearly capable of working in an integrated setting based on their past work experience in community jobs (Ms. Cason, Ms. Kehler, Ms. Robertson, and Ms. Harrah).

Bevan v. Templeman

145 Or. 279 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1933

The uncontradicted documentary evidence clearly shows that F. C. … The witness may have been qualified to testify as to the rental value of the premises, but that testimony would not establish that he or Mrs. Talbott were the owners of the personal property in question. 5.

Wheeler v. Huston

288 Or. 467 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1980

Absent such a motion, a verdict for the plaintiff is immune from attack on the ground that the trial court submitted an allegation of injury which was not proved. … In the absence of such a request, a verdict for the defendant is immune from attack by the plaintiff on the ground that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that the defendant’s liability had been establish *481 ed