Case law

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 [.]”).

State v. Apperson

85 Or. App. 429 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 20, 1987

The parties agree that the statements do not qualify for admission under any of the specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. … Clearly, their admission is necessary to the state's prosecution of the case and serves the interests of justice.

Palafox v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101263b (or.tax 10-25-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Oct 25, 2011

Derickson testified that Plaintiffs did not provide birth certificates to establish that a qualifying relationship exists. … In order to prevail, Plaintiffs must establish all the elements of their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Pitts v. King

141 Or. 23 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1932

There is no competent evidence to establish a conspiracy. The pleading and proof is insufficient to take the alleged defamatory matter out of the privilege class as to defendant H. H. Bang. … “The general rule in America is the same as in England as respects judges, but as to parties, counsel and witnesses is generally qualified to the extent that the defamatory words must be applicable, pertinent or relevant.

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

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

Wilcox Development Co. v. First Interstate Bank of Oregon, N.A.

605 F. Supp. 592 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 7, 1985

The testimony of the experts clearly established that the prime rates used by banks are set to reflect market demands and individual self interest in attracting new and retaining old customers. Dr. … The testimony made it clear that the plaintiffs did not qualify for alternate rate loans which were designed for and available to low risk borrowers who qualified for very large loans at fixed rates for a fixed short period

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

Employment Division v. Ring

104 Or. App. 713 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 19, 1990

She was not engaged in activities that qualified as “employment” under any statute, and no remuneration for past services was paid or payable to her. … In designing Oregon’s unemployment insurance system, the legislature’s policy choices are clearly revealed in its definitions of “wages” and “employment.”

Koch v. Southern Pacific Company

266 Or. 335 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1973

There are also situations where a jury clearly is equally qualified without help from opinion testimony such as offered here. … It is the area between the clearly qualified and the clearly unqualified where the trial judge should be granted a certain latitude of decision in excluding or receiving expert opinion testimony." ( 259 Or. at 260 , 486 P

State v. Jones

258 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 14, 2013

practical and prudential underpinnings of the preservation doctrine and emphasized that defendant’s appellate contention as to the categorical inadmissibility of the evidence was qualitatively different from that ‘“presented clearly … Pitt, 352 Or 566, 579 , 293 P3d 1002 (2012) (“When the act is so established by the defendant’s stipulation, or when the trial court instructs *8 the jury that it first must find from the evidence that the alleged act occurred

In Re Eastwood

239 F. Supp. 847 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 30, 1965

Thus, in involuntary bankruptcies the range of compensable services was fairly clearly indicated, and was apparently narrower than in voluntary bankruptcies. … The crucial qualifying phrase in § 64 is “costs and expenses of administration”.

Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. v. Century Home Components, Inc.

261 Or. 333 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1971

Justice Howell's dissent, we agree that the intentions of plaintiffs' counsel were not clearly articulated. … The authorities cited by the majority involve cases where liability was established, and the case was remanded for a trial only on the issue of damages.

Barnum v. Department of Revenue

5 Or. Tax 508 · Oregon Tax Court · May 3, 1974

Subsequently, the mother and daughter established a close personal relationship long after the adoptive parents had died. … "What is needed is not a reiteration of established principles but rather a definition of “unambiguous” for application in the present case.

Dorvinen v. Crook County

153 Or. App. 391 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 15, 1998

It provides that, ip. the absence of the qualifying circumstances that are described in ORS 215.780(2) and that are not present here, the 80-acre minimum parcel size is an across-the-board requirement in EFU zones. … 215.263(4) provide no basis for concluding that the minimum parcel size requirement of ORS 215.780(l)(a) does not apply to the parcels that result from land divisions for nonfarm dwellings, and the language of ORS 215.780(1) clearly

Polaski v. Clark

158 Or. App. 166 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 1999

For example, it may be possible for an individual to qualify as a resident of Oregon for purposes of voting or obtaining an Oregon driver’s license and not meet the residency requirements established by these rules. “(2) … “The evidence before me and before [the vice chancellor] clearly establishes an intent to establish residence here, and that a slavish attention to parts of that ruling is not warranted.

State v. Burleson

342 Or. 697 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 1, 2007

But the qualifying phrase in ORS 132.340, ‘when required by the grand jury,’ is not meaningless. … It reflects the historic independence of the grand jury’s role from that of the prosecutor about which grand jurors should be clearly informed.

State v. Kellaher

90 Or. 538 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1919

If a written law creating an office and prescribing the term contains an express provision or clearly manifests an intent that an unexpired term shall be-first completed then the resignation of an elected incumbent leaves … because his successor had been elected and qualified.

Lunsford

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 30, 2026

Roberts moves to dismiss the claims against him based on failure to state a claim and qualified immunity. … Roberts’ qualified immunity argument.

In Re the Marriage of Fedorov

228 Or. App. 50 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 29, 2009

Since long-distance moves may severely erode established relationships between three-year-olds and their non-moving parent unless there is broad and meaningful interaction at least every month, a relocation to Australia will … Certainly, we find no “clearly articulable reasons” for reversing its decision. We can, in fact, hardly improve upon the court’s careful and thorough findings, which we have already summarized.