Case law

Arlington Education Ass'n v. Arlington School District No. 3

177 Or. App. 658 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 31, 2001

The AU recommended dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the union had failed to establish that the district had refused to arbitrate. … In the letter, the District states clearly that it was refusing to arbitrate the * * * grievance.

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. England

52 Or. App. 843 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 1981

See OAR 412-21-015. 6 While that dilemma is unfortunate, and perhaps unintended, 7 Congress in enacting the ICWA clearly expressed its intent to extend procedural safeguards *852 only to Indian persons with legal custody … Petitioner has not maintained here that she qualifies as an Indian custodian by reason of that transfer.

Medical Building Land Co. v. Department of Revenue

7 Or. Tax 119 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 29, 1977

On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Board of Equalization for Multnomah County established the assessed value at $3,368,660, of which $168,660 was attributed to the land and $3,200,000 to the improvements. … Each of these able, experienced men clearly qualified as an expert.

Call v. Linn

112 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1924

This witness qualified so as to enable him to *11 testify as to what the value of the lambs was at the time the sale was made. … contract — if the plaintiff is entitled to prevail, and that is a question of fact for you to determine — between what he received upon the open market and what the contract states he should receive. ’ ’ This instruction clearly

State v. Wyatt

331 Or. 335 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 1, 2000

However, an examination of the briefing in those cases establishes that a preliminary question — preservation—was not at issue in either case. That preliminary question is present here. … O’Brien, 320 Or 729, 737 , 891 P2d 1307 (1995) (rules pertaining to preservation of error in trial courts are intended to advance goals such as ensuring that positions of parties are presented clearly to initial tribunal

Anderson v. Aupperle

51 Or. 556 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1908

It would be an index of her general conduct as to civility or rudeness, and might be material on the question of damages; but it was not offered -specifically for that purpose, as the remark of the court clearly indicates … But whether the unchastity of Viletha Thurman at and prior to the time of the alleged séduction may be established by evidence of her general reputation for virtue and chastity, as contended by defendant’s counsel in the

Portland Ass'n of Teachers v. Multnomah School District No. 1

171 Or. App. 616 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 27, 2000

ERB did not conclude that a teacher’s reassignment to a less desirable class or schedule could never qualify as coercive or other unlawful action within ORS 243.672(l)(a). … As ERB observed, the case presented a different question from the usual mixed-motive case because “the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ reasons for the denial of [the employee’s] transfer” could not be “clearly separated.”

Patton v. Department of Revenue

18 Or. Tax 111 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 21, 2005

Moreover, taxpayer does not assert facts establishing that any governmental official at any time suggested that receipt of a property tax *123 bill, in any amount, meant his property was WOSTOT qualified. … First, no statutory or case law supports that legal position; rather, the WOSTOT regime clearly treats separate parcels separately — it does not link times of purchase, times of application for classification, classification

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. … Spoto, 326 Or App 525, 528, that the claim for easement by necessity was “clearly devoid of any legal of factual support.” 480 Curry Properties, Inc. v.

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.

Federation of Parole & Probation Officers v. State Ex Rel. Oregon Department of Corrections

144 Or. App. 535 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 20, 1996

Nor does that phrase alone suffice to create contractual obligations on behalf of the state. 3 A statute must be considered “in its entirety” and must “clearly and plainly” indicate the legislature’s intention to surrender … Plaintiffs next assign error to the trial court’s holding that ORS 423.549 does not violate Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution, which prohibits laws “granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities

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.

Strasser v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 5, 2021

To qualify for judicial immunity, a judge must have performed “judicial acts” within the scope of his or her jurisdiction. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). … These allegations involve only Foote and Heywood’s actions associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process and do not show that they acted “clearly outside the scope of [their] authority.”

State v. Wagner

305 Or. 115 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1988

What, for instance, will qualify as a “thing of value” for purposes of ORS 163.095(1)(a) and (b)? Cf. State v. … 1 The statutory test is further qualified.

SAIF v. Ward

369 Or. 384 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 24, 2022

There are two steps involved to determine whether an individual qualifies as a “subject worker.” The first step is to determine whether the individual qualifies as a worker. … To resolve the question of statutory construction before us, we follow the established statutory interpretation framework laid out in PGE v.

Roloff v. SAP AMERICA, INC.

432 F. Supp. 2d 1111 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 26, 2006

To establish a pri-ma facie case of discrimination in violation of the ADA, a plaintiff must prove that he or she is disabled, is qualified, and that he or she suffered an adverse employment action because of the disability … Defendant does not seriously argue that plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case. Defendant concedes plaintiff was disabled, he was qualified for his position, and he suffered an adverse employment action.

United States v. Dunlap

162 F. Supp. 3d 1106 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 12, 2016

ORS 164.395(1). 5 The Oregon Supreme Court *1114 has established that “[i]t is the additional factor of actual or threatened violence” that separates robbery from theft. State v. … Juvenile struck the victim, she used a degree of force that clearly exceeded the minimal *1118 force contemplated in Flores .

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Schenck

318 Or. 402 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1994

His denial of the motion to disqualify is sufficient to establish a wilful violation of Canon 3C(1). … In the Porter case, however, the record does not establish that the Judge gave the issue of his disqualification under Canon 3C(1) adequate, if any, consideration, although his recusal clearly was required after the judge

John Lee Malaer v. Curry County, et al.

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2026

As a result, the Court need not reach the issues of qualified immunity or the Monell claim, both of which are contingent on an underlying violation of Plaintiff’s rights, although the Court notes that at least some of the … individual defendants are likely entitled to qualified immunity, even under the relatively relaxed inquiry in a motion to dismiss established in Keates v.

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