Case law

State v. Dunham

336 Or. App. 30 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 6, 2024

For present purposes, we assume without deciding that unitary assessments qualify as fines under ORS 161.685(5). 34 State v. … For instance, a proceeding can qualify as a “separate and distinct judicial proceeding” even if it arises, as a formal matter, within the bounds of an existing criminal case.

Hannigan v. Hinton

195 Or. App. 345 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 2004

Although ORS 540.610 is not itself included in the Water Rights Act, portions of the Act, to which mining water rights are clearly subject, incorporate the limitations of ORS 540.610. … Petitioners next argue that, even if their water rights can be forfeited, the use of the water at a location other than the certificated place of use qualifies as “use” that precludes forfeiture of the right under ORS 540.610

Lefler v. Lefler

218 Or. 231 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1959

It thus clearly appears that due process is preserved and that the defendant in Tennessee had his day in court and the judgment only was rendered against him after he had an opportunity to offer proof. … The court’s words were, “Such immunity might be bought cheaply.” The decision did not go unchallenged.

Snashall Et Ux v. Jewell Et Ux

228 Or. 130 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1961

However, we interpret the evidence as establishing a general building scheme for the entire tract. … The evidence clearly supports this assumption. The first deed from Nosier and Powell to defendants contained essentially the same covenants as expressed in the other deeds previously executed.

Vo v. Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 20, 2022

On a fundamental level, sovereign immunity bars the relief Petitioner seeks. Although a state may waive sovereign immunity, any such waiver must be an express waiver. … As the Court clearly lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and as the Respondent is entitled to sovereign immunity, there is no point in requiring Petitioner to pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

Eugene Water & Elec. Bd. v. MWH Ams., Inc.

293 Or. App. 41 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 25, 2018

EWEB requested an order "establishing parallel litigation tracks, allowing EWEB to simultaneously pursue its claims against [AAC] in arbitration and its claims against MWH here, in Lane County Circuit Court." … In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by EWEB on any form of defense or immunity, whether sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, immunity based on the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United

Rennie v. Freeway Transport

294 Or. 319 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1982

The stated general rule is clearly applicable here. … Severance of particular issues for separate trial, for example, is a well established procedural device. See ORCP 53 B.

Tektronix, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

16 Or. Tax 338 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 21, 2001

ORS 315.304 “gives qualified taxpayers a tax credit for the cost of constructing certified pollution control facilities.” Smurfit, 329 Or at 593 . … This court held that: “[t]he fact that a statute may bar an assessment for taxes or a claim for refund after a certain period does not mean that the administrative agency or the courts must ignore the facts establishing the

Fischer v. Benton County

244 Or. App. 166 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 13, 2011

The expenditure ratio factor clearly weighs in [the county’s] favor. … Whether zoning permissions have ripened to a degree sufficient to immunize the use from regulatory controls is tested by the ‘common law vested right’ doctrine referenced in section 5(3) of Measure 49.”); Pete’s Mountain

State v. Moyer

225 Or. App. 81 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 7, 2009

According to the trial court, “political contributions are clearly speech,” and the challenged statute equally clearly regulated it without the safe harbor of a historical exception to the protections afforded by constitutional … In the alternative, if it is a Robertson first-category statute, it nevertheless is wholly contained within a well-established historical exception.

Oregon Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Heavy Vehicle Electronic License Plate, Inc.

157 F. Supp. 2d 1158 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 9, 2001

The standard for establishing general jurisdiction is “fairly high,” Brand v. … For the relief plaintiffs are seeking, this court clearly has personal jurisdiction over defendant.

Dilger v. School District 24CJ

222 Or. 108 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 25, 1960

May the teacher, with immunity, put a small child on the sidewalk and point the child in the direction of the school? … Does it mean that only those churches or sects who are either sufficiently opulent or ardent enough to maintain an organized school will qualify?

Local 2195, Lumber & Sawmill Workers Union v. International Paper Co.

488 F. Supp. 877 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 15, 1980

Such warning slips shall clearly state the basis for the warning and provide therein a space where the employee must sign acknowl *879 edging receipt of the warning slip, although the person does not necessarily accept that … An employee is qualified for holiday pay if the employee meets all the following conditions: (a) The person’s last hiring date was at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the paid holiday, and (b) the person worked the

State v. Woodman

195 Or. App. 385 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 22, 2004

Clearly, based on the testimony of the two witnesses here * * * I think this does affect a substantial right of the defendant.” … Harvey, 303 Or 351, 354 , 736 P2d 191 (1987) (“[I]f the actor’s conduct otherwise qualifies as a crime, the fact that he has a personal defense of acting under duress by another person hardly can be a defense to that other

State v. Taylor

364 Or. 364 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 7, 2019

However, defendant did not offer those studies in the trial court or otherwise create a record to establish the factual premise of his argument. … As presented, we are unwilling to reconsider our precedent on the issue of death-qualified juries. 2.

Second Northwestern Finance Corp. v. Mansfield

121 Or. 236 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1927

We think this evidence was admissible for the purpose of establishing that there was no consideration for the note sued upon. … In the instructions the court clearly assumed that capital stock of a corporation was a good consideration for a promissory note, and instructed the jury clearly that unless they found that the facts represented by the defendant

Brandrup v. Recontrust Co., N.A.

353 Or. 668 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2013

However, the legislature did not clearly express that intent. … The accuracy of that assertion depends on whether MERS qualifies as an agent of those entities for purposes of Oregon law.

S v. v. Sherwood School District

75 F. Supp. 2d 1153 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 27, 1999

In amending the EHA to its present form, Congress rejected its earlier policy of “merely establishing] an unenforceable goal requiring all children to be in school.” … The Bradley court held that Arkansas waived its immunity through participation in the IDEA, a spending program. 189 F.3d at 753.

Alleman v. United States

372 F. Supp. 2d 1212 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 12, 2005

When legislation waiving sovereign immunity contains a statute of limitations, the statute of limitations constitutes a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity. Block v. … The Wilderness Act and its supporting regulations clearly established that the government did not recognize roads or motorized access within the wilderness area. See Southwest Four Wheel Drive Ass’n v.

Maney v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 7, 2023

In August 2020, Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing, as relevant here, that qualified immunity bars Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims and discretionary immunity bars Plaintiffs’ negligence claims … Following oral argument (ECF No. 147), the Court denied Defendants’ motion with respect to qualified immunity, but granted the motion in part with respect to discretionary immunity and entered partial summary judgment