Case law

Huntsinger v. BNSF Railway Co.

286 Or. App. 84 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 7, 2017

Second, Brady establishes that a rail vehicle or train undergoing inspection may still qualify as “in use,” at the very least in situations in which the vehicle would immediately move into service if it passed inspection. … The court observed that “Congressional intent and the case law construing the [LIA] clearly exclude those injuries directly resulting from the inspection, repair, or servicing of railroad equipment located at a maintenance

Bridgeview Vineyards, Inc. v. Oregon State Land Board

258 Or. App. 351 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 28, 2013

The repairs were to occur during the “in-water” work period established for Sucker Creek. … The standard of review is well-established.

Napier v. Lincoln County School District

4 Or. Tax 221 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 3, 1970

The funding of school buses, their maintenance and repair, clearly would come within this provision. … The budget committee consists of members of the governing body and a number of qualified electors. ORS 294.336.

Swift & Co. v. Peterson

192 Or. 97 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1951

No person operating any slaughterhouse, stockyard, packing plant, livestock auction market or similar establishment shall sell or slaughter or permit the sale or slaughter of any livestock in or through such establishment … Their immunity from inspection under the Act continues only so long as they are still in the flow of interstate commerce movement which brought them into this state.

Stanich v. BUCKLEY

230 Or. 126 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1962

Carrol drank some beer, the quantity not being established by any of the testimony. During the evening Carrol and plaintiff decided that they would go to the Pagoda, a bar, for a drink after plaintiff closed his tavern. … The rationale of these cases is clearly stated in White v. Davis, 103 Cal App 531, 284 P 1086, 1092 (1930).

Bond v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 9, 2024

The Privileges or Immunities Clause provides that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States[.]” U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1, cl.2. … With respect to substantive due process, that claim is, as previously noted, not clearly made out on the face of the proposed TAC.

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Development Commission

69 Or. App. 717 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 19, 1984

If problems of this sort by themselves justified a finding of commitment, it would be impossible to establish lasting boundaries between agricultural and residential areas anywhere, yet establishing those boundaries is basic … These explanations clearly contemplate that the 40-acre parcels will ultimately be taken out of range land use.

Bailey v. Hoffman

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 28, 2025

of law to establish federal jurisdiction over these claims. … Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 158 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that absolute immunity “fails to attach to judicial officers only when they act clearly and completely outside the scope of their jurisdiction” and therefore allegations that

Mears v. Marshall

137 Or. App. 390 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 25, 1995

It is well settled that federal law supersedes conflicting state law, but that Congress’s intent to displace the historic police powers of the states must be clearly manifest. Cipollone v. … She argues that, because of the presumption against preemption of state police power, state tort and common law claims are preempted only if Congress clearly states its intent to do so.

Humphers v. First Interstate Bank

298 Or. 706 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1985

Doubtless plaintiffs interest qualifies as a “privacy” interest. … Granted that at times a court must decide a new point of law that necessarily will establish either a right in the plaintiff or a privilege or immunity in the defendant, Hinish v.

Waggoner v. Husk

337 Or. App. 519 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 29, 2025

First, the defendant must establish that the claim falls within the scope of protected activity under ORS 31.150(2). … If that is established, then, second, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff in the action to establish 1 ORS 31.150 has been amended since the trial court ruled on defendant’s motion.

Hood River County School District v. Fogle

30 Or. App. 699 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 22, 1977

School district shall make every effort to transfer teachers of courses scheduled for discontinuation to other positions for which they are qualified. … ORS 342.905(1) clearly requires that such a statement be included in the notice.

Lichau v. Baldwin

333 Or. 350 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 14, 2002

The unit diary was in evidence at the post-conviction hearing and contained an entry demonstrating that petitioner had qualified on the rifle range at Camp Lejeune on June 28, 1989. … The court concluded that the absence of the above evidence “clearly ha[d] a tendency to affect the result of the prosecution of the case” and granted petitioner post-conviction relief. *358 The state appealed, assigning error

Haystack Rock, LLC v. Roberts

343 Or. App. 244 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 4, 2025

The Robertses argue that, notwithstanding those well-established principles, our 2016 decision in Landis dic- tates a different result. … The trial court granted summary judgment for the county on recreational immunity grounds. Id.

Penrose v. Mitchell Bros. Crane Division, Inc.

246 Or. 507 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1967

Lininger, 224 Or 614 at 622 , 356 P2d 547 (1960), clearly established “* * * that the workmen of both employers were commingled in a common undertaking, all were exposed to the same hazards, and all were necessary to the … The mobile crane was therefore clearly under the control of the defendant. The defendant was more than the supplier of the equipment. It was the operator.

Hoffman v. Foremost Signature Insurance

989 F. Supp. 2d 1070 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 21, 2013

“First, a party’s later position must be ‘clearly inconsistent’ with its earlier position.” Id. … This Court is not persuaded that this valuation ' difference is “clearly inconsistent.”

State v. Hyde

88 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1918

Clearly these deeds when so accepted passed title to the base lands to the United States. … If, as is admitted, he was not a qualified purchaser at the time, he clearly obtained the title to state lands upon a false affidavit and in violation of law; and, in our opinion, no subsequent act of his can cure the defect

State v. Rainoldi

236 Or. App. 129 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 30, 2010

DID THE LEGISLATURE CLEARLY INTEND TO DISPENSE WITH ANY CULPABLE MENTAL STATE REQUIREMENT? … The Supreme Court wrote: “As the Court of Appeals noted, the qualifying phrase ‘that necessarily requires a culpable mental state’ * * * introduces a confusing appearance of circularity in the text.

In re the Marriage of Arand

182 Or. App. 368 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 3, 2002

Wife testified that, because husband was late in making mortgage payments, she will not qualify for new loans if forced to sell her home. … The crummy-driving income clearly comes under the rubric of wages.

McKenzie Law Firm, P.A. v. Ruby Receptionists, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 16, 2019

The work-product doctrine “is not a privilege but a qualified immunity protecting from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in anticipation of litigation.” Admiral Ins. … Aug. 22, 2019) (“Once the party objecting to discovery establishes that the materials are protected work product, the burden shifts to the party asserting waiver to establish that a waiver has occurred.”); Towne Place Condo