Case law

G. A. C. v. State ex rel. Juvenile Department

219 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 26, 2008

Mother also testified that “I don’t think I’m qualified any more to help [V] with all the psychological issues that she has.” … See, e.g., ORS 30.936 (defining claim for physical injury, for immunity purposes, with reference to ORS 161.015).

Rood v. Umatilla County

526 F. Supp. 2d 1164 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 20, 2007

To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the ADA, the plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) the plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) the plaintiff is a qualified individual … To establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment based upon her disability, plaintiff must show (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability, (2) she was subject to verbal or physical harassment because

State v. Hallam

307 Or. App. 796 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 2020

Although the, Deputy Gardner could not say exactly each minute what he was doing, he very clearly indicated that he was waiting for the criminal history check by dispatch. … Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution establishes the right of the people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure.”

Oregon Ex Rel. Frohnmayer v. Lacy (In Re Lacy)

74 B.R. 23 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 1987

The court concluded that the statute did not afford the state a right to payment as required under § 101(4) and § 101(12) to qualify as a creditor vis a vis the § 523(a)(2) claim. … While the doctrine of parens patriae is available to confer standing upon a state in an action at common law, or in an instance where the class of plaintiffs is not clearly delineated by statute, it should not be used to

Outdoor Media Dimensions, Inc. v. Department of Transportation

340 Or. 275 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2006

Robertson, * * * this court established a framework for evaluating whether a law violates Article I, section 8. … “Pray for Peace,” for example, would qualify as an on-premises sign for a church. 340 Or at 293.

State v. SUPANCHICK

245 Or. App. 651 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 2011

But in a domestic violence situation, you already have someone who’s not thinking clearly. “Q. Right. “A. … There is no question that he was qualified to testify regarding proper police procedures.

Thoens v. Safeco Insurance

272 Or. App. 512 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 22, 2015

Delamarter testified that the amount of force necessary to cause injury varies from one person to the next: “[I] it is clearly different for different people. … Probst established adequate “knowledge, skill, experience, training [and] education” to qualify him to calculate and testify to the impact speed in the collision, the forces transmitted to plaintiff in her car in the collision

Kneisler v. Legacy Health

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 20, 2024

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to establish either of the first two elements. Mot., ECF 10 at 5–10. … This Court can take judicial notice of the well- known principle that vaccines work by “altering” the immune system by provoking an immune response, which allows the immune system to respond more quickly and effectively

Tirumali v. City of Portland

169 Or. App. 241 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 26, 2000

In this case, the building permits approve a building height based on the grade that was established as a result of filling in a portion of the lower part of the property. … That ambiguity is resolved by the definition of ‘grade’ at PCC 33.910.030, which clearly specifies that the grade is located based on ‘finished surface.’ ” (Emphasis in original; footnotes omitted.)

State v. Rutley

343 Or. 368 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 8, 2007

This court has noted that “the qualifying phrase ‘that necessarily requires a culpable mental state’ * * * introduces a confusing appearance of circularity in the text.” State v. … Cho, 297 Or 195, 201 , 681 P2d 1152 (1984) (“The mere enactment of a crime without an expressly required culpable mental state is insufficient to establish such a clear indication.”); Miller, 309 Or at 369 (for driving under

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.

Wilson v. Czerniak

238 F. Supp. 2d 1207 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 21, 2002

Therefore, the decision to retry defendant is not “contrary to” clearly established law under either prong, which gives rise to the second issue of whether a retrial would be an “unreasonable application” of clearly established … See Early, 123 S.Ct. at 366 (“decisions which are not ‘contrary to’ clearly established Supreme Court law can be subjected to habeas relief only if they are not merely erroneous, but ‘an unreasonable application’ of clearly

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

United States v. Oregon & C. R.

186 F. 861 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Apr 24, 1911

But'until he was qualified to take, there was no actual grant of the soil.” … Under this theory, it is further asserted that it makes no difference that a cestui que trust was not in being and qualified as such at the time of the grant, but that the act has in contemplation any such qualified person

State v. Chipman

176 Or. App. 284 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 29, 2001

The NIDA standards mention only five specific classes of controlled substances by name, and they are clearly intended to provide detection level “cut-off’ standards of testing for marijuana, cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine … See, e.g., ORS 813.160(1) (“To be valid under ORS 813.300 * * *, the chemical analysis of a person’s blood shall be performed by an individual shown to be qualified to perform such analyses [.]”).

Hughes v. Adult & Family Services Division

58 Or. App. 478 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 4, 1982

In the present case, the evidence establishes that the father was not continually absent from the children’s home for 30 days. Therefore, the children did not qualify for ADC benefits. … Hughes is providing maintenance is clearly erroneous. However, because the hearing officer made a determination that there was “no valid separation,” i.e., Mr.

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 .

Dept. of Human Services v. C. E. S.

328 Or. App. 57 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 13, 2023

C undoubtedly benefits from the existence of those records in terms of any ongoing care she receives from her provid- ers, and she clearly has a privacy interest in the information contained in those records, but that does … Also, ORS 192.553(2) expressly recognizes that the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) establishes “additional rights and obligations regarding the use and disclosure of protected health information

Department of Human Services v. A.B.

286 Or. App. 578 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2017

The court then ordered briefing on the issue of “whether the Court can dismiss DHS and establish an out of state guardianship with Grandfather.” … care of qualified persons.

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.