Case law

Cousineau v. Cousineau

155 Or. 184 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1936

Lynde must be restricted or qualified so as to cause it not to overrule the decision in the Barber case. *190 * * * We think the conclusion is inevitable that the Lynde case cannot be held to have overruled the Barber case … An insolvent husband would become immune from the alimony decree if such was the law.

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

O'Neill v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 29, 2024

“When the plaintiff asserts multiple claims, it must establish that venue is proper as to each claim.” Kaia Foods, Inc. v. Bellafiore, 70 F. Supp.3d 1178, 1183 (N.D. … Jan. 23, 2012) (“Neither the United States, federal agencies, nor federal officers sued in their official capacity qualify as ‘citizens of different states.’”).

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.

Watkins v. Josephine County

243 Or. App. 52 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 25, 2011

See id. at 375 (majority states that “[t]he statutory pension system and the relationship between the state and its employees clearly established a contractual obligation” (emphasis added)). … In any event, the charter clearly is an important part of the rules’ context; that context, along with the text of the disputed benefit provisions, not only fails to unambiguously establish a promise of permanence; they establish

Inman v. Ollson

213 Or. 56 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1958

.-010. (1) Thereafter, on August 5, 1954, and within 30 days after posting these notices, they complied with subsection (2) of OES 517.010 by establishing the boundary marking posts. … possession reposing in the defendants, then it was clearly in error.

Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Elicker

598 F. Supp. 2d 1136 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 10, 2009

State Defendants, in turn, contend they have immunity as state officials under the Eleventh Amendment. … Thus, some federal cooperation clearly has already occurred during the development of the Reintroduction Plan and additional cooperation appears imminent if the plan is implemented.

Atrio Health Plans, Inc. v. Performance Health Technology, Ltd.

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 13, 2019

In order to arise under federal law, “[a] right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” … While ultimately unsuccessful in removal, PH TECH was not “clearly foreclosed” from removing this action based on relevant case law.

Green Mountain Log Co. v. Columbia & Nehalem River Railroad

141 Or. 188 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1932

On direct examination, the witness, after being qualified, should have been asked in substance whether he knew of any general custom or usage in the Columbia river district during the time in question, relative to the method … before the Public Service Commission relative to custom or usage in scaling logs and such testimony was contrary to that given in the instant case, the record in the rate case might be used for impeachment purposes, but clearly

Yes on 24-367 Committee v. Deaton

276 Or. App. 347 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 2016

Brown introduced SJR 52, which would have established a new statewide property tax.’ «<*** [¿y|t a time when the people were clearly saying they wanted LOWER PROPERTY TAXES, [Brown] introduced legislation to add a new, state-wide … That document, which is in the record, clearly itemizes the two different existing fire district assessments.

ACN Opportunity, LLC v. Employment Department

278 Or. App. 697 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 8, 2016

The ALJ concluded that OAR 471-031-0125 “clearly and unambiguously requires face-to-face contact in the customer’s home as a condition of exclusion under ORS 657.087(2) [.]” … Thus, the ALJ determined that ACN had not established that its IBOs’ services qualified for the ORS 657.087(2) exemption from “employment” because it had not established “the extent” to which the IBOs’ compensation resulted

Pickard v. Oregon Senior Citizens, Inc.

238 Or. 359 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1964

Plaintiffs’ complaint does not clearly disclose the theory upon which the suit or action was brought. … Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing the breach and its substantiality. Plaintiffs contend that defendant’s adoption of a self insurance program as a substitute for insurance *364 coverage through.

Dorsciak v. Gladden

246 Or. 233 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1967

The state's own testimony, therefore, would support a finding that the confession was induced by an express or implied promise of immunity from prosecution. … The evidence produced by the petitioner and the state in the post conviction hearing clearly establishes the reason the petitioner entered the plea of guilty to rape of his daughters.

Gladhart v. Oregon Vineyard Supply Co.

332 Or. 226 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2001

Under the interpretive methodology established by this court in PGE v. … Moreover, by 1977, the legislature clearly had demonstrated its ability to express a discovery rule in numerous other limitation statutes.

Fisher v. Bowen

659 F. Supp. 784 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 4, 1987

As such, Fisher is entitled to the benefit of the limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States provided under the Administrative Procedure Act. 1 5 U.S.C. § 702 . … The Secretary asserts that the duties of the Secretary regarding approval of the private placement option are clearly discretionary and that Fisher has no role in choosing such assignment.

State v. Amini

175 Or. App. 370 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 18, 2001

The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Sixth Amendment applicable to the states and provides, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; … The trial court appeared later to have qualified that instruction.

WESTERN RADIO SERVICES CO. v. Qwest Corp.

734 F. Supp. 2d 1139 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 16, 2010

The PUC also contended that Western’s 42 U.S.C § 1983 causes of action were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and by absolute and qualified immunity. … Title 47 U.S.C. § 251 (c)(2) clearly gives Western the right to deliver all its traffic to any technically feasible point in Qwest’s network.

Hornbuckle v. Harris

69 Or. App. 272 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 25, 1984

Based on the foregoing facts as established by the pleadings, there is no 1983 violation. See Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 US 516 , 102 S Ct 781 , 70 L Ed 2d 738 (1982); Mullane v. … Even though plaintiffs’ homes qualified for homestead exemptions under former ORS 23.240(1), plaintiffs lost those exemptions because they failed to file homestead exemption claims. See former ORS 23.270 and 23.450(3).

State v. BP

229 Or. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 2009

In this case, the parties agree that B.P. has a mental disorder, that he would not voluntarily participate in treatment, and that he did not qualify for conditional release. … Beil, 196 Or.App. 501, 506 , 102 P.3d 757 (2004), or they are made under unusual circumstances that make actual *978 future violence highly likely—that is, the threats clearly form a foundation for predicting future dangerousness

Rodgers Et Ux v. Reimann Et Ux

227 Or. 62 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1961

The evidence in the case at bar is not sufficient to establish such reliance by the plaintiffs. Dr. … The scope of a third party beneficiary’s rights and remedies in Oregon is not clearly defined.