Case law

State Highway Commission v. Goodwin

208 Or. 514 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1956

We there said that this provision of the Constitution carries with it “a waiver of immunity on the part of the state to actions prosecuted for damages for its violation.” 196 Or at 147 . … It is true that the action cannot be maintained at all unless a taking in the constitutional sense is established.

Mason v. Mountain River Estates, Inc.

73 Or. App. 334 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 17, 1985

The county established a three-stage approval process for PUDs. … Moreover, the county’s recent interpretation is clearly contrary to the language and intent of the PUD ordinance.

Matter of Marriage of Red Fox

23 Or. App. 393 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 24, 1975

by a French court because in the course of the proceeding leading up to the entry of that de *400 cree a party had been permitted to testify “not under oath” and without cross-examination and because documentary evidence clearly … Miller, 70 Ariz 380, 222 P2d 624 (1950). ⑦ That an Indian tribe has the authority to regulate the domestic relations of its members — including the power to grant a divorce — has been well established. United States v.

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.

Pearson v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance

834 F. Supp. 2d 1199 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 2004

Based on these opinions, Defendants informed Plaintiff that he did not qualify for total disability benefits under the policy and that his disability benefits would cease effective April 28, 2001. … In light of the clear legislative statement that only the Director shall regulate improper insurance practices and the fact that fraud in the inducement would clearly qualify as an improper practice, coupled with the absence

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.

State v. Savan

148 Or. 423 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1934

It is not aimed at disqualification, but is exercised upon qualified jurors as matter of favor to the challenger. … Clearly at this stage of the proceeding the excusing of a juror was a matter that addressed itself to the sound discretion of the court. The record does not disclose why the juror was excused.

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.

Global Hookah Distributors, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

24 Or. Tax 562 · Oregon Tax Court · Aug 6, 2021

established.’ … Wayfair, 138 S Ct at 2099; see also Hellerstein, 2 State Taxation ¶ 19.02 n 142 (“Clearly, a virtual presence (in the modern sense of having a website) is not required to establish substantial nexus.

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.

Daley v. Daley

280 Or. App. 448 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 31, 2016

As explained below, on review to determine “whether any evidence establishes the requisites for the issuance of the FAPA restraining order by the trial court,” Patton v. … In other words, she contends that “the evidence clearly demonstrates that subsection (b) of ‘abuse’ was proven.”

Dept. of Human Services v. J. A. G.

328 Or. App. 739 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 25, 2023

Although the statute does not impose a “requirement of absolute need,” to qualify as a “needed” treatment, the treatment “must be connected more than tenuously to the jurisdictional bases” the treatment is Cite as 328 Or … Although we are mindful of the press of court business, we encourage courts, when issuing orders under ORS 419B.387, to clearly explain why, based on the evidence, the ordered treatment is needed by a parent to

Buddenberg v. Southcoast Lumber

316 Or. 180 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 6, 1993

In this case, claimant established a permanent partial disability by showing a partial loss of use of his feet. … Second, the statute that authorizes claims for aggravation, ORS 656.273, clearly treats such a claim as independent of the prior adjudicated claim.

Bates v. Oregon Health Authority

335 Or. App. 464 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 2024

Robertson Framework We begin with the framework for evaluating Article I, section 8, claims, as established in Robertson. … Contrary to defen- dants’ assertion that that passage demonstrates that “the regulation of packaging is not the regulation of expression,” we interpret the passage as referring to the clearly non- expressive elements of packaging

Nichols v. Clackamas County

146 Or. App. 25 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 9, 1997

here that Brentmar does not permit LCDC to adopt any rules that amplify the statutory descriptions of uses in ORS 215.213(1) and ORS 215.283(1), even in ways *33 that are fully consistent with the statutes and that would clearly … Affirmed. 1 No argument is made that the parcel qualifies for a dwelling under any other regulatory standard. 2 Only Washington County and Lane County adopted such provisions while the option for doing so existed. 3 We note

Ross v. Blewett

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 3, 2025

Accordingly, Ross has failed to establish that the law “clearly favors his position” that COVID-19 currently poses a sufficiently serious risk of harm to support his Eighth Amendment claim. … In light of the higher level of immunity from vaccines, the widely available PPE, and the greater treatment options now available, the Court finds that Ross has failed to establish that he is likely to suffer irreparable

Pulley v. Herndon

324 Or. App. 568 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 15, 2023

Mother asks this court to exercise de novo review, asserting that this qualifies as an “exceptional case” for purposes of ORAP 5.40(8)(c). … [She] testified that [grandmother] and [T] were clearly bonded and the relationship benefitted [T] psychologically. “3.

Hudjohn v. S&G MACHINERY CO.

200 Or. App. 340 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 2005

Extensive motions practice ensued, much of which pertained to S&G’s invocation of immunity from civil liability by virtue of the “workers’ compensation exclusivity” statute, ORS 656.018(l)(a) 2 Ultimately, plaintiff filed … Second, Butler’s opinion as to causation, even as so qualified, was explicitly stated in terms of possibility (“may be”) and not probability.

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).

Mark v. Valley Insurance

275 F. Supp. 2d 1307 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 17, 2003

Thus, an insured with a Significantly Above Average insurance score did not necessarily qualify for Valley Insurance’s best rate available, the Ultra Rate. … An insured, however, could not qualify for Valley Insurance’s best rate available unless the insured had a Significantly Above Average insurance score.