Case law

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

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.

State v. Hirsch/Friend

338 Or. 622 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 23, 2005

State of Oregon, 306 Or 529, 533-34 , 761 P2d 502 (1988) (although unavailability of post-conviction relief to persons convicted of municipal ordinance violations did not in itself contravene equal privilege and immunities … Article I, section 27, clearly guarantees the right to bear arms for purposes of defense — specifically, “for the defence of [the people] themselves, and the State.”

State Ex Rel. Blackledge v. Latourette

186 Or. 84 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1949

The Commission stated: “It has been applicant’s practice since establishment of its Kansas City and St. Louis routes to move empty vehicles from Kansas City to St. Louis, or from St. Louis to Kansas City, over TJ. S. … A., § 321(c), is sweeping and is free from qualifying passages.

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.

Hofer v. OHSU

319 Or. App. 603 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 2022

recognizes the defenses of qualified privilege and absolute privilege in defamation claims. … Plaintiff relies on ORS 192.553(1)6 in support of her contention that “medical records clearly qualify as a legally protected interest.”

State v. Pirtle

255 Or. App. 195 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 13, 2013

And so[,] in terms of the rationale for the automobile exception, at least from my perspective, it applies in this situation because it clearly is not a case where, for instance, the vehicle parked, remained parked.” … In particular, defendant emphasizes the temporal requisites of the automobile exception, which the Supreme Court unambiguously ratified in Kurokawa-Lasciak: “[T]o qualify for the automobile exception, the vehicle that the

Boyd v. Essin

170 Or. App. 509 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 18, 2000

Respondent clearly came within petitioner’s visual presence when she saw him drive by her home. See State v. … In determining whether respondent’s act qualifies as a contact, we look initially to the ordinary understanding of that term. State v. K.P., 324 Or 1 , 7-8, 921 P2d 380 (1996).

John Coe Richardson v. Deschutes County Circuit Court, et al.

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 9, 2026

These entities are immune from suit under Section 1983 because they are state entities shielded by the Eleventh Amendment. … Public defenders and private attorneys generally do not qualify as persons acting under the color of state law for purposes of Section 1983 claims. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1982); Simmons v.

Petersen v. MAYOR ETC. CITY OF KLAMATH FALLS

279 Or. 249 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1977

Because annexation ordinances relate directly to the Urbanization Goal, they clearly appear to be subject to LCDC review under this statute. … Proponents of the annexation seek to establish a 55-acre mobile home park and an 86-acre subdivision of half-acre lots.

Martyr v. Bachik

770 F. Supp. 1406 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 1, 1991

The defendants represent that they do not censor such mail if it is clearly labeled as legal mail. Requiring Martyr to label such mail is a reasonable requirement. … Commercial establishments Martyr has failed to establish a probability of success on the merits of his claim that he has an absolute right to send uncensored mail to these addressees. 8.

Carr v. Leonard

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 3, 2024

That absolute immunity applies not only to judges, but also “for advocates and witnesses” involved in the proceedings. Jd. … Rather, the plaintiff must establish that this harm is likely. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).

State Ex Rel Chapman v. Appling

220 Or. 41 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1960

We will discuss this contention in the light of certain well-established principles, namely, (1) that a state constitution does not confer power on the legislature, but is a limitation on power, and therefore it is competent … Words which have no well established technical or legal signification are to be given their plain, natural and ordinary meaning. A constitution is dependent upon ratification by the people.

Campbell v. State

254 Or. App. 726 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2013

Generally, the sentence of an inmate who qualifies for good-time credit is adjusted by deducting a certain number of days from the sentence imposed by the sentencing court. Id,.; see also Neal v. … correct that, under Shelby, he was entitled to “good time” for certain dates, we would not agree with his ultimate conclusion that he would have reached his “good-time” date before he was *735 paroled, because plaintiff clearly

Dawson v. Croisan

18 Or. 431 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1890

His liabilities in the main -were probably in favor of Portland merchants, and I suppose they insisted upon his appointing the appellant, a resident of Portland, his assignee; at all events he did so appoint him. and he qualified … This conclusion is clearly sustained by the same author. He says, on page 556 of the work referred to, as follows: ‘ ‘ The available remedy in equity, when any is admissible, is commonly that by injunction.

Phipps v. Willis

53 Or. 190 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1908

It is the general rule that the party, alleging and relying upon the charge of fraud, takes upon himself the burden of proof, and must clearly establish every necessary element thereof. 6 Enc. … Nor is direct and positive proof essential to the establishment of fraud.

Curtiss v. Department of Corrections

212 Or. App. 42 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 11, 2007

OAR 291-100-0080 provides, in pertinent part: “(1) [The DOC Offender and Sentence Calculation Unit] must receive time served certifications directly from the county sheriff or other qualified certifying authority. … Because paragraph (2)(a) clearly contemplates DOC calculating a “term of confinement” to include time that a person is “confined” before being delivered to DOC’s custody for service of the sentence, we turn to ORS 137.320

Shields v. Villareal

177 Or. App. 687 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 31, 2001

Matthews, 129 NM 134 , 2 P3d 871, 878 , rev den 129 NM 207 (2000) (requiring “substantial evidence” that the defendant had “clearly and unequivocally abandoned the easement”). 4 Although the court found that, “on the face … of it, both witnesses have impressed the court and seem to be even reasonable people,” the court immediately qualified that observation by finding that, “[o]n balance, it makes more sense to me to think that the defendant

Alexander v. State

283 Or. App. 582 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 1, 2017

Consequently, plaintiff failed to establish that there was a genuine issue of fact as to economic damages. … In applying that standard, we uphold the trial court’s decision unless it exercises its discretion in a manner that is unjustified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence. Quillen v.