Case law

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.

Li v. State

338 Or. 376 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 14, 2005

Here, the spark that ignited this controversy was the county’s decision to issue marriage licenses to otherwise-qualified same-sex couples. … Clearly, the official’s authority to conduct and decide the contested case was pivotal.

Vision Realty, Inc. v. Kohler

214 Or. App. 220 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 25, 2007

Those terms were sufficient to establish an enforceable listing agreement. Both the trial court and defendant confuse the relevant agreement. … The October 2002 letter of intent signed by defendant and the eventual lessee clearly stated that the lease term was to be ten years and specified a lease rate.

City of Klamath Falls v. Winters

289 Or. 747 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1980

Court in cases involving constitutional questions, but omitting to make similar provision for the appeal of other municipal court cases involving violations of city ordinances (except to the circuit court), the legislature clearly … It is well established that there is no constitutional right to an appeal. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 77 , 92 S.Ct. 862 , 31 L.Ed.2d 36 (1972); State v. Endsley, 214 Or. 537, 539 , 331 P.2d 338 (1958).

Abney v. Gates

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 3, 2022

Supreme Court precedent establishes that a state is immune from suit in federal court unless Congress has abrogated the state’s immunity by appropriate federal legislation or the state itself 1 The court acknowledges the … Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003) (“It is well established that agencies of the state are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from private damages or suits . . . in federal court.”).

Edwards Vacuum LLC v. Hoffman Instrumentation Supply, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 23, 2021

Disparagement of competitors is only actionable in the Ninth Circuit when the representation is “(1) clearly false, (2) clearly material, (3) clearly likely to induce reasonable reliance, (4) made to … [A] plaintiff may overcome de minimis presumption by cumulative proof that the representations were [1] clearly false, [2] clearly material, [3] clearly likely to induce reasonable reliance,

Rendler v. Lincoln County

76 Or. App. 339 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 14, 1985

The interests intervenor seeks to protect are clearly germane to intervenor’s purpose: it was incorporated solely to “legally establish the prescriptive easement rights of the public to a pedestrian right of way” abutting … We conclude that intervenor qualifies for representational standing.

Lewis v. Worldwide Imports, Inc.

238 Or. 580 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1964

of the sale. *582 The record clearly discloses sufficient evidence to establish a fraudulent representation under circumstances warranting the imposition of punitive damages. … “The usual expert is qualified by proof of his familiarity with the property and with other property in the neighborhood, his experience in the business, his familiarity with the state of the market and of sales of similar

State v. Chadwick

10 Or. 525 · Marion County Circuit Court, Oregon · Jul 24, 1879

The plea is clearly insufficient. … Still, being a ministerial officer and not a judicial one, he cannot claim the full immunity with which the law in the interest of a “free and impartial administration of justice, * * uninfluenced by fear and unbiased by

Oregon State Bar v. John H. Miller Formerly Executive Estate Planners, Inc.

235 Or. 341 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1963

However, it was clearly established that the estate planning business was carried on as a distinct enterprise offering service to clients irrespective of their insurance needs. … Decree modified. ① ORS 9.160 “Except for the right reserved to litigants by ORS 9.320 to prosecute or defend a cause in person, no person ahgn practice law or represent himself as qualified to practice law unless he is an

Houston v. Maunula

121 Or. 552 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 24, 1927

These instructions clearly state the law in this jurisdiction regarding liability for negligence and the result of contributory negligence. … "We believe that a jury is better qualified to pass upon the facts under proper instructions than is this court in a case of this kind.

Miller v. State

298 Or. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 12, 2019

App. at 657 , 719 P.2d 1322 (qualified male applied for one of several available positions, but employer hired and employed only women). … The claim that McGrail was friendlier in his treatment toward men was clearly inconsistent with the prior statement that he treated them no differently.

State Ex Rel. Acocella v. Allen

288 Or. 175 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1979

No one contends that the Public Defender is the only lawyer in Lane County qualified to represent the relators on appeal. … ORS 138.500(2) does not say who carries the burden to establish or negate the necessity and materiality of a requested segment.

State v. Lopez

241 Or. App. 670 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 30, 2011

of the evidence code provides, in pertinent part: “(1) For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or established … ’s contrary construction is substantially predicated on the following recommendation in Professor Kirkpatrick’s treatise on Oregon evidence: “Although the beginning date for the calculation of the fifteen-year period is clearly

Simms v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, MULTNOMAH CTY.

13 Or. App. 119 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 26, 1973

It summarizes the rule: “It is a well-established rule of the law of torts that a teacher is immune from liability for physical punishment, reasonable in degree, administered to a pupil. … Clearly the court did not abuse its discretion here. Affirmed. ① From court’s Instructions: “A teacher is not justified to engage in wanton misconduct in ejecting a disruptive student.

State v. Haynes

149 Or. App. 73 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 2, 1997

To begin with, the statute states that such “public buildings” are included within the meaning of “protected property’ without explicit textual reference to the qualifier “customarily occupied by people.” … find that at the time of the fire the commercial establishment was not customarily occupied by the people.

Richardson v. Northwest Christian University

242 F. Supp. 3d 1132 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 16, 2017

For example, if an employer makes clearly racist or sexist statements, those statements are direct evidence of animus. Mayes v. WinCo Holdings, Inc., 846 F.3d 1274, 1280 (9th Cir. 2017). … Plaintiff asserts that she clearly was fired because of her marital status. Defendant presented her with two options that would permit her to keep her job: she could marry her partner or stop living with him.

Photo-Art Commercial Studios, Inc. v. Hunter

42 Or. App. 207 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 17, 1979

Defendants concede that plaintiff was qualified to produce the films and that there was little to distinguish its proposal from Odyssey’s. … Plaintiff did not seek to establish standing as one whose lower bid had been rejected. The state conceded that plaintiff had standing as a taxpayer.

State v. Horn-Garcia

320 Or. App. 100 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 8, 2022

The jury was clearly instructed that it should not consider the sentence that might be imposed if defendant was convicted. … “Recklessness alone, however, does not establish extreme indifference to the value of human life.

Sharp v. Employment Division

47 Or. App. 733 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 11, 1980

None of them had a separate business establishment or a separate business phone. They did not advertise their services or have business cards. … It seems to us that an alleged employe not eligible for unemployment compensation because of ORS 657.150 is rather clearly not economically dependent upon his alleged employer.” 46 Or App at 683-684 .