Case law

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.

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

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).

Heiller v. Department of Revenue

14 Or. Tax 207 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 1, 1997

The statutes are strictly construed and the applicant must bring itself clearly within the exemption. Bd. Pub., Meth. Church v. Tax Com., 239 Or 65, 68-69 , 396 P2d 212 (1964). … In addition, plaintiff no longer has the necessary standing to appeal any denial of a property tax exemption for the subject property because the evidence established that the property is now owned by Bruin Nature Conservancy

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.

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.

State v. Copeland

353 Or. 816 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 25, 2013

On review, defendant does not dispute that the cer- tificate of service was a qualifying official record under OEC 803(8). … One of the most clearly expressed statements of that limitation is found in Commonwealth v. Slavski, 245 Mass 405, 140 NE 465, 469 836 State v.

Buras v. Department of Revenue

17 Or. Tax 282 · Oregon Tax Court · Jan 26, 2004

Application of income to charitable purposes may result in a tax benefit, but only where the donee is a qualified charity and the donor itemizes deductions. … Taxpayer’s statutory claims are based on federal statutes that clearly do not apply. That could have been established with a brief visit to a competent tax attorney.

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.

Stone Logging & Contracting Co. v. International Woodworkers

171 Or. 13 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1943

A. §§ 158 and 159, quoted supra, that it would constitute an unfair labor practice for an employer to discourage membership in a labor organization unless its action is rendered immune to the condemnation of the statute by … Clearly, it is the task of an administrative body to determine whether or not the employer has been guilty of an unfair labor practice by aiding the union to secure the required majority for representation, yet the absence

Koos v. Roth

293 Or. 670 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1982

The common law decisions were to the contrary, although exactly what rule of liability they established is disputed. … If there is a duty on a person to prevent his fire *684 escaping to his neighbor’s land, and the fire does in fact escape, clearly he has been in ‘neglect’ of his duty.”

Rosalie Ridge LLC v. Dept. of Rev.

21 Or. Tax 434 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 24, 2014

But in order to establish this predominant purpose, the county relies almost exclusively on the period following the transfer of the subject property from Lillian Logan to taxpayer. … The court heard testimony at trial from Daniel Logan and from Ken Everett, another witness qualified as an expert in forestry.

State v. Moore/Coen

349 Or. 371 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 16, 2010

This court previously has stated that OEC 404(4) “clearly qualifies as an evidentiary change in the law that favors only the prosecution by making the conviction of a defendant more likely.” See State v. … The holding in Wardius , however, did not establish a constitutional rule that a defendant and the state must be treated identically in all respects.” Id. at 686-87 (internal citation omitted).

Conn v. Oregon Electric Ry. Co.

137 Or. 75 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1930

With respect to that contention, the court said: ..“.The rule prevails very.generally and is.firmly established in our law that it is the duty of a traveler, *82 whether on foot or in some vehicle, to look and listen before … L., “Railroads,” pp. 1056,1057, seems to the writer to be clearly applicable to the situation here presented: “All the authorities support the proposition that where the evidence conclusively shows that a person injured at

Walter v. Scherzinger

339 Or. 408 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 13, 2005

Still, the CCSL clearly was intended to cover only those custodians in the District’s employ. … Read together, the statutes discussed above establish the breadth of the civil service board’s authority over custodial positions within a qualifying school district.

Boytano v. Fritz

131 Or. App. 466 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 23, 1994

That section, too, establishes a limitation on the uses to which municipal funds may be applied. Both sections establish self-imposed limits on the authority of the municipal government. … However, the statute clearly could have no such effect. It provides remedies only as to measures that have been enacted or are being enforced.

State v. Zavala

276 Or. App. 612 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 2, 2016

The state argues that, in Williams , the court clearly indicated that OEC 403 determinations must be sought by the defendant: “We therefore hold that balancing is required by the Due Process Clause. … Kemna, 534 US 362, 375-78 , 122 S Ct 877 , 151 L Ed 2d 820 (2002) (discussing how “firmly established and regularly followed” state procedural rules may preclude review of federal constitutional errors); People v.

Davis v. Crabtree

10 F. Supp. 2d 1136 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 1, 1998

Maybeck, 23 F.3d 888 (4th Cir.1994) (using “actual innocence” exception to vacate sentence after parties erroneously stipulated that the defendant qualified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines). … establishes that the application for certification would be futile.

Hughes v. PeaceHealth

344 Or. 142 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 22, 2008

Article I, section 20, provides: “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.” … Act of August 14, 1848, to Establish the Territorial Government of Oregon, § 14, in General Laws of Oregon, pp 75-76 ( Deady 1845 -1864).

Alton v. Medtronic, Inc.

970 F. Supp. 2d 1069 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 6, 2013

On that construction, the court found- the claim clearly preempted under Section 360k(a) as seeking to “establish design requirements different from, or in addition to, federal requirements for the Infuse Device.” Id. … However, analysis of Alton’s supporting allegations establishes that the claim is pled with adequate particularity.