Case law

Eklof v. Persson

369 Or. 531 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 21, 2022

The state reasoned that, in this case, petitioner was required to “allege and prove facts establishing that she could not reasonably have raised [her] claims in a timely post-conviction proceeding— that is, establishing that … See OEC 201(b).4 As with the above questions, the text and con- text of ORCP 23 A do not clearly resolve the issue, other than directing us to the broad requirements of “justice.”

Comcast Corp. v. Department of Revenue

356 Or. 282 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2014

construction across the state of Oregon *  * a microwave communications network that will link *  Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and so on. *  * We’d *  like to clearly … Although nothing in the record before us establishes precisely how cable television services were delivered in Oregon in 1973, Professor Nguyen’s uncontradicted testimony establishes that they were not delivered through a

Federal Securities Co. v. Federal Securities Corp.

129 Or. 375 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1929

Those circumstances may authorize the inference that the omission of the qualifying phrase was inadvertent. … We quote the following from the decision: “A corporate charter grants no immunity in the use of a deceptive name. The same rule applies to corporate names as applies to the name of natural persons.

Benton County v. Friends of Benton County

294 Or. 79 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1982

Kenagy did not have a sufficient interest to qualify as a petitioner before LUBA. It did not question that the organization would qualify if he did. … This language was deleted by the amendments establishing LUBA.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of O'Byrne

298 Or. 535 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1985

No risk as he [O’Byrne] will pay us interest on our money until we are qualified.” … Therefore, it was clearly intended the $46,000 would be used by me as I needed it while taking the time to get a venture going for us.

Seaton v. Security Savings & Trust Co.

131 Or. 261 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1929

L., requires proof of the agreement by competent or satisfactory evidence, but failed to define these qualifying words; (2) because, to adopt the plaintiff’s contention, the court did not make clear to the jury that any direct … His testimony may be used, perhaps to corroborate other evidence in the case, but it is not sufficient, in itself, to establish his claim.

City of Portland v. HomeAway.com, Inc.

240 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 9, 2017

Thus, HomeAway can be an Operator only if it qualifies as a Managing Agent. … First, HomeAway .argues that the Terms and Conditions, entered into between HomeAway and. travelers, clearly establish that .the service fee is not for occupancy.

Keller v. Department of Revenue

12 Or. Tax 381 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 23, 1993

Applying the pre-1951 law, the court in Keyes held that a Canadian gross income tax on dividends did not qualify as a “net income tax.” 209 Or at 662 . … But they did not increase the value of the products— that value was established by the market price at which they sold.” (Emphasis in original.)

Dept. of Human Services v. E. J.

316 Or. App. 537 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 22, 2021

ORS 419A.255(2)(a) references a broad range of materials that can qualify for the privilege. … Here, DHS sought to disclose the mate- rial; regardless of what other situations and actors may or may not fall under the statute’s ambit, DHS clearly does.

Klamath Irrigation District v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 25, 2022

The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that all removal requirements have been met. … Here, KID’s motion for preliminary injunction is clearly not a seeking the adjudication of competing water rights under § 666(a)(1).

State v. Isom

313 Or. 391 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1992

The jury instructions, when read as a whole, clearly instructed the jury to consider all mitigating evidence, whether or not that mitigating evidence was causally related to the crime. … We nonetheless will address defendant’s argument in the methodology long-established by this court — first under Oregon statutory law, then under the Oregon Constitution, and finally under the United States Constitution.

McKinney v. Cooper

163 Or. 512 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1940

The law applicable herein is so well settled and established in this jurisdiction and elsewhere that there is no need of encumbering the reports by a restatement *519 thereof. Irwin v. … Clearly, the matter of which the plaintiff complains was pertinent and relevant to the issues, and it so appears from the face of the complaint.

Shelton v. Wilson (In re Wilson)

311 B.R. 566 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 22, 2004

Specifically, any “collection agency” could qualify for the statutory exclusion for providing “factoring services.” … A Bankruptcy Court’s findings of fact are accorded great weight and should only be set aside if clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Bankr. Pro. 8013.

State Ex Rel. Cutlip v. Common Council

171 Or. 329 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1943

Inasmuch as this is now the established view, it is unnecessary to examine the early cases construing the constitutional amendments herein discussed. The defendants place much reliance upon the case of McKeon v. … Johns case is clearly distinguishable from the present one.” The ruling in McKeon v. Portland, supra, is further clarified in Greig v. Owyhee Irrigation District, 102 Or. 265, 273 , 202 P. 222 , thus: “. . .

Brown v. Oregon Department of Transportation

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 5, 2020

Turning to ODOT, which is an agency of the State of Oregon, the Eleventh Amendment provides that a state is immune from suit in federal court unless Congress has abrogated the state’s immunity by appropriate … But when a plaintiff requests a “mandatory injunction,” that “already high standard . . . is further heightened,” and the plaintiff must “‘establish that the law and facts clearly favor her position, not simply that

Hunter v. Farmers Insurance

135 Or. App. 125 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 21, 1995

In a different atmosphere, I suppose if a person hadn’t been drinking and thinkin’ clearly, he would know such a thing. “Q. So today you’re here testifying that you weren’t thinking clearly at the time? “A. … Defendant * * * has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct of * * * Hoyt qualifies for either of the exclusions in its policy found in paragraph [s] 3. a and 3.b.

State v. Hart

299 Or. 128 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 7, 1985

As the state gradually established a monopoly over the institution of punishment, and a division between civil and criminal law emerged, the victim’s right to compensation was incorporated into civil law. … We adhere to our view expressed in Dillon : “* * * [Restitution was clearly not intended to be the equivalent of a civil award. For example, it does not necessarily fully compensate the victim.

Dept. of Human Services v. C. E. S.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 13, 2023

C undoubtedly benefits from the existence of those records in terms of any ongoing care she receives from her providers, and she clearly has a privacy interest in the information contained in those records, but that does … Also, ORS 192.553(2) expressly recognizes that the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) establishes “additional rights and obligations regarding the use and disclosure of protected health information

United States v. Greathouse

297 F. Supp. 2d 1264 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 20, 2003

Having established a fourth amendment violation relative to the nature of his detention, the government bears the burden of establishing the absence of any causal connection between the illegality and the evidence sought … were entitled to qualified immunity because the issue was unsettled.

State v. Gonzales

329 Or. App. 155 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 15, 2023

The fact that the caseworker had personal knowledge of the inter- view with S did not obviate the state’s burden to establish that the caseworker made the report “at or near the time” of the interview. … defendant.6 For those reasons, the 6 We acknowledge that both Ferguson (vouching testimony) and Marrington (expert evidence) involved particularly damaging evidence that had been improp- erly admitted and was clearly