Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersOR

5,059 results

1.36s

  • State v. Chinn

    231 Or. 259 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1962

    The legislature has, in effect, said that no matter *283 how clearly the evidence in the accused's possession would establish his guilt, the enforcement officers cannot reach it, even with a warrant, unless it is a fruit … State courts do not appear to have adopted the federal rule in sufficient number to establish a trend.

    Cited 88 timesPublished
  • State v. Schluer

    59 Or. 18 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 31, 1911

    The power was not conferred without the right to use it to the fullest extent, unless restrained by some exception qualifying the terms of the grant and defeating the defendant’s major premise. … This exception is found clearly defined in the clause: “But such municipality shall within its limits be subject to the provisions of the local option law.”

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Walker v. American Red Cross

    District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 1, 2021

    PAGE 5 – ORDER AND OPINION Here, plaintiff has alleged that he has a severely compromised immune system and is entitled to reasonable accommodation under the ADA. … Importantly, plaintiff has also not established that indefinite housing was even a benefit offered by ARC.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Crowd Management Services, Inc. v. United States

    889 F. Supp. 1313 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 11, 1995

    While plaintiffs evidence establishes that, after 1982, CMS supervisors no longer *1317 exercised their right to control the details of the security workers’ assignments, it fails to establish that the supervisors no longer … Defendant contends that plaintiff's failure to move for summary judgment on this issue constitutes a concession that plaintiff is not qualified for relief under Section 530. That is clearly not the case, however. 3 .

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • State v. Bowman

    60 Or. App. 184 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 10, 1982

    This statute does not give much help in defining the minimum requisites of a private school, but it clearly states that the “parent or private teacher” exemption is not a private school. 3 The statute is not vague. … Establishment of a knowing or intentional violation satisfies the lesser culpable mental state of criminal negligence. ORS 161.115(3).

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • 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

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald People's Utility District

    339 Or. 631 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2005

    The parties agree, as do we, that there is no question that the board qualifies as a “municipality” within the meaning of ORS 758.400(2) and, consequently, also qualifies as a “person” within the meaning of ORS 758.450(2) … qualifies as a “municipality’ that is excluded from the statutory term “public utility’ in that context.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Barrett

    District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 2, 2025

    Or. 2004) (finding the Oregon Tort Claims Act does not waive the State of Oregon’s Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court), and § 1983 does not abrogate that immunity, Quern v. … Because Plaintiff has failed to plausibly establish that “she is a qualified individual with a disability,” Lovell, 303 F.3d at 1052, Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action under the ADA is dismissed.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • United States v. Dean

    949 F. Supp. 782 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 11, 1996

    Forfeiture and restitution are clearly distinct concepts in the criminal law. See United States v. … Given current Bureau of Prison pay scales, I find that defendant can pay $5 per month during his incarceration after he qualifies for in custody employment.

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • State v. Harris

    339 Or. 157 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 18, 2005

    And we have found no statute that clearly makes recidivism an offense element in such circumstances.” *165 Id. at 230 (internal citations omitted). … Second, prior convictions remain, at least for now, a viable exception to the requirement noted above, due in large part to the jury’s function in establishing those convictions. 7 Finally, the jury’s importance in establishing

    Cited 43 timesPublished
  • A.M v. Omegle.com LLC

    District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 2, 2023

    Defendant therefore clearly knows that some of the persons it recruits or solicits are under 18. … There is no reason the same should not be true of a virtual establishment.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Roach v. Hockey

    53 Or. App. 710 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 31, 1981

    He argues that the failure to give this additional qualifying instruction amounted to telling the jury that a physician is not liable for an inappropriate judgment if he acts in good faith. … The trial court clearly instructed the jury to disregard the release and its terms if it found that it did not apply to the present defendants.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Ferguson v. Holborn

    106 Or. 566 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1922

    The conduct of Anna Ferguson in qualifying as executrix and bringing the suit for the construction of the will did not amount to an election to take under the will only. … The truth of this was established by the decree in that suit, which has become final: Rehfield v. Winters, 62 Or. 299, 306 ( 125 Pac. 289 ).

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Comcast of Oregon II, Inc. v. City of Eugene

    211 Or. App. 573 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 28, 2007

    In February 2003, the city manager issued Administrative Order 58-02-29-F (the 2003 order), adopting the reduced rate and ratifying the other rates established in the 2002 order. … State of Oregon, 161 Or App 32, 38 , 983 P2d 1044 , rev den, 329 Or 447 (1999) (“[T]he legislative power includes the authority to write a seemingly absurd law, so long as the intent to do that is stated clearly.”).

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • People Not Politicians Oregon v. Clarno

    District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 10, 2021

    OHA is authorized by statute to create registries that track immunizations in Oregon. Or. Rev. Stat. § 433.094 (2019). … Once vaccine providers have given immunization records to OHA, they publish the aggregate number of people who have received a COVID-19 vaccination on their website.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • State v. Wiltse

    373 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 7, 2024

    The Court of Appeals then considered whether the instruction “qualified for plain-error review.” Id. … It is the jury’s role to determine whether the state has carried that burden; the jury must find the facts that establish the elements of the crime. Boots, 315 Or at 592.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Gearin v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 100664c (or.tax 5-27-2011)

    Oregon Tax Court · May 27, 2011

    If Plaintiff is now denied the disputed credits, neither parent will receive the benefit the state clearly intended to confer upon them as relatively low income wage earners with work-related child care expenses. II. … Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Jacobson

    164 Or. App. 37 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 3, 1999

    “Claimant agreed to a training program with a goal of cost estimator under the good faith belief that this would qualify him for a job in the electrical field. … The record tends to establish the opposite since there were concerns about late payment of wages and the allegation that Shari might be using illegal practices.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Marquam Farms Corp. v. Multnomah County

    147 Or. App. 368 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 16, 1997

    had somehow established a nonconforming use to operate and expand a 50-dog kennel. … To the extent that the county has interpreted the section in the manner that petitioners assert, the interpretation cannot survive even under the less than stringent “clearly wrong” test that inheres in Clark.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Barnhouse

    District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 7, 2025

    Defendants have Eleventh Amendment immunity from being sued in their official capacities. … To prove an ADA Title II claim, an inmate must establish that: “(1) he is an individual with a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of some public entity’s services, programs

    Cited 0 timesUnknown

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.