Case law

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.

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

Shoulderblade v. Osborn

60 Or. App. 12 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 1982

Foster that he needed a 60-foot easement in order to qualify for an Oregon veterans’ loan and that she had said, “[T]hat didn’t make any difference, that part was all right.” … The documents covering the transfer of the property filed with the title company and the two earnest money agreements clearly show that the parties intended to include an easement in the deed.

City of Eugene v. Roberts

91 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 6, 1988

Defendants maintain that, to qualify for ballot placement, the second question must but does not comply with the statutory requirements for a “measure.” … For the purpose of this section, the conduct of an election includes, but is not limited to, establishing precincts and polling places, preparing ballots and sample ballots, and receiving and processing votes.”

State v. Parkerson

371 Or. 716 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2023

Defendant does not dispute that he may qualify as a dangerous offender under ORS 161.725; rather, defendant contends that the trial court did not comply with the sentencing procedures required by ORS 161.735. … Under either standard, however, reaching an issue is clearly discretionary. The majority is perfectly within its discretion to reach the issue here. I merely exercise my dis- cretion in the opposite direction.

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

Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum v. Dept. of Rev.

22 Or. Tax 1 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 19, 2014

However, the department asserts that some of the property for which taxpayer claims exemption does not qualify for exemption. … This borderline can be difficult to establish completely.

Skidmore v. Skidmore

197 Or. 409 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1953

This is a material change in circumstances after the decree and stands undisputed and established.” … The plaintiff was clearly the prevailing party in the contempt proceeding. The reasonableness of the amount awarded has not been questioned. The fourth assignment of error lacks merit.

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

State ex rel. Oregon Pipeline Co. v. Clatsop County

253 Or. App. 138 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 24, 2012

We concluded that the court’s statement in Murphy “clearly implie[d] that a mandamus action under one of the two parallel statutes must have been brought before the belated local decision was made in order for the mandamus … The county has not argued that it has adopted an ordinance setting out what qualifies as “final action.”

State v. Martin

313 Or. App. 578 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 28, 2021

In Johnson, however, we also left open the ques- tion of whether evidence that satisfies a “well-established exception to the hearsay rule, might, standing alone, satisfy due-process-based confrontation demands” without a … Johnson, noting, “In the absence of a more clearly useful standard and because the parties have framed their arguments consis- tently with it, we apply the Ninth Circuit’s balancing test to the record in this

Loe Et Ux v. Lenhard

227 Or. 242 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 17, 1961

A trespass, once established, carries with it liability for resulting harm. Martin v. Reynolds Metals Co., 221 Or 86 , supra. … The plaintiffs urge that their substantial compliance with the requirements of the statute satisfies the act when the legislative intent is clearly met.

Walsh v. Oregon Railway & Navigation Co.

10 Or. 250 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1882

But let it be conceded that the decided weight of judicial authority maintains that where a passenger projects his arm, elbow or head out of a car window, voluntarily, and without any qualifying circumstances impelling him … Justice Johnson says: “The fact of negligence is very seldom established by such direct and positive evidence that it can be taken from the consideration of the jury and pronounced upon as matter of law.

Lambert Pharmacal Co. v. Roberts Bros.

192 Or. 23 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1951

It is now clearly apparent, however, that a wrong result was reached, and that an affirmance would make final a judgment which we now know cannot be justified under the law. “In A. Santaella & Co. v. Otto F. Lange Co. … None of the dissenting judges dissented on the ground that the transactions were not interstate or not illegal under the Sherman Act if they were not rendered immune by the Miller-Tydings Amendment.

Libby v. Olcott

66 Or. 124 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1913

The act clearly designates them, not as laws thereafter to be passed, but in the words “all measures passed by the twenty-seventh legislative assembly of the State of Oregon *129 upon which the referendum may he invoked.” … It qualifies the reservation of power by the people which they call the referendum. To the legislative assembly they have committed the authority to call special referendum elections.

Smith v. Durant

271 Or. 643 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1975

Defendant contends that Marshall should be “clarified” and “qualified,” if not reconsidered and overruled, and should not be applied to this case because prejudice may result in that the jury may reason that because there … established.

United States v. Osborn

409 F. Supp. 406 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 6, 1975

This document clearly falls within the privilege. Item 4: Two Wills As noted above, Osborn possesses no documents pertaining to item 4. … To so hold would extend virtual immunity to every client file maintained in an attorney’s office.

State v. Andrews

174 Or. App. 354 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 23, 2001

Blanton, 31 Or App 327, 331 , 570 P2d 411 (1977) (noting that statutory language “may add some contusion to our analysis”), aff 'd 284 Or 591, 595 , 588 P2d 28 (1978) (“the qualifying phrase ‘that necessarily requires a culpable … See Cho, 297 Or at 201 (“The mere enactment of a crime without an expressly required culpable mental state is insufficient to establish such a clear indication.”).

Harrington v. City of Portland

708 F. Supp. 1561 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 26, 1988

During her tenure in the Bureau of Police, Plaintiff was promoted from Policewoman to Police Detective, Police Sergeant, Police Lieutenant and Police Captain, having qualified for these positions through competitive examinations … If there was a tort committed as alleged, Mayor Clark is immune from liability in this claim. Count 2 of the fourth claim for relief is dismissed. 4.

Archer v. Gage

126 Or. 532 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 13, 1928

One who has driven motor vehicles for a. considerable period is qualified to express his opinion on the subject. … If the very able counsel who offered this testimony had considered it substantive testimony tending to establish his case, he would have offered it on his direct ease.