Case law

Robinson v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District

277 Or. App. 60 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 16, 2016

She argues that “ORS 742.061(3) immunity is conditioned upon whether a prohibited issue is raised, *70 and not whether proof on the prohibited issue is actually presented.” 9 (Emphasis in original.) … Under ORS 278.215(2), “[a]ny local public body, as defined in ORS 30.260, which establishes a self-insurance program under ORS 30.282 for or on account of the operation of motor vehicles within the local public body’s control

Welch v. U. S. Bancorp Realty & Mortgage Trust

286 Or. 673 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1979

The real use of the term reasonable certainty seems to be to screen out an issue from the jury when the court has concluded that the evidence, taken as a whole, is clearly insufficient to establish the fact sought to be proved … To paraphrase, *705 the court should intervene only when it can say that the evidence is clearly insufficient to establish the claim of lost profits.

State v. Marshall

350 Or. 208 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 14, 2011

The word does not, for example, clearly refer only to violence or complete physical domination of the other person. … The 1999 amendment does show that the legislature did not intend to permit every kind or degree of force to qualify as “forcible compulsion.”

Chapman v. Toy Long

5 F. Cas. 497 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Jul 31, 1876

alien Chinamen, who have not declared their intention to become citizens of the United States;” that on February 21, 1S75, the miners of Poorman and Jackass creeks district, situate in Jackson county, state of Oregon, duly established … Treat. 148), provides that citizens and subjects of the two nations shall respectively enjoy the same privileges, immunities or exemptions, in respect to travel or residence “within the country of the other,” as may there

Hubbard v. Hubbard

7 Or. 42 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1879

The respondent was thereupon appointed executor of the same, and immediately qualified and entered upon the duties of his trust. … If either of these facts should be fully established by the evidence, it may be well said it is in no respect the will of Joseph B. Hubbard.

State v. Branson

82 Or. 377 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1916

. *380 To clearly comprehend defendant’s contentions, it is necessary to make a brief statement of the evidence submitted by the prosecution. ' William Booth, the victim of the alleged homicide, was the husband of the defendant … It is also contended that the testimony in regard to the comparison of the “rats” was incompetent, because the witnesses did not qualify as experts, and, if not experts, the jury was the proper authority to-make the inspection

State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. England

292 Or. 545 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1982

Persons qualifying as “Indian custodians” under the ICWA are entitled to notice and certain other rights in proceedings to terminate placement. 25 USC § 1912 . … Since petitioner did not receive Sonja from a parent, she cannot qualify under that provision.

City of Damascus v. Brown

266 Or. App. 416 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 22, 2014

Section 1(3) sets out the process that a qualifying landowner must follow to withdraw the landowner’s property from the city. … Rather, HB 4029 establishes — as legislative policy — that the decision whether to alter the city’s boundary should be made by certain eligible landowners.

Heerdt v. City of Portland

8 F.2d 871 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 5, 1925

On April 11, 1923, article III was amended to read: “It shall be unlawful for any person hereafter to maintain or to establish on any vacant lot in any residential district in the city any fuel yard, lumber yard or second-hand … There is no moral test prescribed, nor any rule of action or standard fixed by which the applicant may be controlled or governed, in order to qualify him as a suitable person to be allowed the permit.

United Streetcar, LLC v. Dept. of Rev.

23 Or. Tax 418 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 11, 2019

The Enterprise Zone Act clearly authorizes the firm and the zone sponsor to agree to “any additional requirement the sponsor may reasonably require” as a condition of the addi- tional one or two years of exemption. … The court interprets these provisions as establishing a per-employee test, i.e., the statutes require that each employee whom the firm wishes to count toward the minimum requirement must work a majority of the employee’s

Miller v. Yamhill County

620 F. Supp. 2d 1241 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 15, 2009

Liability of Sheriff Crabtree Defendants have moved for summary judgment as to the claims against Sheriff Jack Crabtree on the basis of qualified immunity. … This assertion does not establish a genuine issue of material fact. See Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 266 (9th Cir.1995).

State v. Kersting

50 Or. App. 461 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 1981

A party making an alleged oral admission may have been misinformed or may not have clearly expressed his meaning, or the witness testifying thereto may have misunderstood him; or it may be that the witness who testifies to … Mower, supra. 4 If a due process violation is established, the trial court must take whatever action is reasonably necessary to prevent prejudice to the defendant. E.g., State v. Mower, supra.

Rice v. United Parcel Service General Services Co.

43 F. Supp. 2d 1134 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 19, 1999

The UPS defendants contend that UPSGSC qualifies as both an employer and part of the “group” of UPS, Inc. UPS, Inc. is a family of corporations. … In those cases, both employers receive the benefit of workers’ compensation immunity for employers.

Riggs v. Douglas County

167 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 3, 2000

In that application [petitioner] sought to establish that there was a demonstrated need for rural residential housing in the vicinity. … The court continued: “ ‘To qualify as “agricultural land” under [OAR 660-333-0020(l)(b)], both the higher and lower quality lands must be part of a farm unit.

State v. Williams

161 Or. App. 111 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 1999

Clearly, the state is relying on section (b) of the statute, pertaining to handguns in vehicles. … That provision clearly does not apply given the facts of this case and no extensive discussion of it is called for here. See generally State v.

State v. Berg

60 Or. App. 142 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 1982

Antonson clearly had probable cause. Although the mobility of an automobile, without more, may not be sufficient to establish exigent circumstances, State v. … In so doing, the peace officer shall act with the same rights, privileges and immunities as are otherwise provided by law.”

Nah-Dzul v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101237c (or.tax 12-1-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Dec 1, 2011

IRC section 152 (a) defines a dependant as either "(1) a qualifying *Page 5 child, or (2) a qualifying relative." … Defendant used the support and gross income tests to conclude that in order for a taxpayer to claim a qualifying relative as a dependent, the total amount of support used by the dependent for the year must be clearly quantified

Lynd v. ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY

276 Or. 341 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1976

Clearly, much better evidence must have been available to this defendant to establish one way or another whether it is the corporation responsible for manufacturing this saw. … Plaintiff’s evidence clearly demonstrated that, as a result of this design, the insert could tilt and come in contact with the blades of the cutting head.

Real Good Food Store, Inc. v. FIRST NAT. BK. OF Or.

276 Or. 1057 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1976

But the merchants' need for a business service is not an "unusual circumstances" which would justify depriving banks of their freedom to bargain for immunity from liability. … The majority opinion does not explain what is necessary to constitute a "public bailee"; it seems to imply that any business with powerful bargaining strength qualifies.

Van Natta v. Department of Revenue

13 Or. Tax 215 · Oregon Tax Court · Jan 26, 1995

For the first period in question, January-June 1991, the contract established a payment arrangement based upon a percentage split of gross receipts. … Taxpayers qualifying under ORS 321.282 calculate *217 their tax liability on the basis of net stumpage recovery.