Case law

Kays v. McCall

244 Or. 361 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1966

judicial function by substituting for our judgment a clearly erroneous administrative pronouncement. … Monson, 95 Utah 552 , 83 P2d 266 (1938). ⑧ Or Laws 1917, ch 176, § 1. ⑨ Prior to 1957 it was not necessary for a person to register in order to qualify as a legal voter.

Anderson

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 13, 2026

Additionally, a court must dismiss a complaint on immunity grounds once it has “sufficient information to make a determination” that defendants are entitled to absolute or qualified immunity. Chavez v. … A court may issue an ex parte TRO without notice to the adverse party only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly shows that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the

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).

Boaters Rights Association v. Early

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 20, 2024

The Act establishes a dedicated funding source by imposing an excise tax on boating related items such as fishing equipment and motorboat fuel. … The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

State v. Moyer

348 Or. 220 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 29, 2010

Tidyman, 306 Or 174, 185-86 , 759 P2d 242 (1988), that, to qualify as a Robertson category-two statute — a statute that focuses not on speech but on harmful effects — the operative text must “specify adverse effects” targeted … The equal privileges and immunities clause is also implicated when vague laws give unbridled discretion to judges and jurors to decide what is prohibited in a given case, for this results in the unequal application of criminal

In re the Dissolution of the Marriage of Hastings

17 Or. App. 548 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 1974

Hastings in contempt for “wilfully withholding * * * [Robert] beyond the established visitation period” and directed “that a warrant should issue for her arrest.” … But the Polaroid exhibits before Judge Dahl back in March clearly had multiple blows. «* * * * * “* * * The child had been spanked and spanked way too hard.

Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund v. Port of Portland

286 Or. App. 447 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 28, 2017

the Supreme Court have decided whether a governmental policy adopted by an executive officer that only affects contractual relationships of that government, and does not enact or implement a general rule of civil conduct, qualifies … Does the policy fall within a well-established historical exception?

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee of the University of Oregon

102 Or. App. 276 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 27, 1990

PETA argues that, under that language, it clearly has standing, because it participated, advocated its position and lost. … PETA qualifies as a person under ORS 183.310(7): “ ‘Person’ means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental subdivision or public or private organization of any character other than an agency.”

Hale v. Belleque

255 Or. App. 653 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 20, 2013

Unlike the state, we do not treat that allegation as one of inadequacy of counsel, as it clearly relates to a ruling of the court. … Rather, petitioner contends, trial counsel asserted that the state’s disparate treatment of petitioner and Susbauer in plea negotiations had violated the equal privileges and immunities clause in Article I, section 20, of

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Campbell

345 Or. 670 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 5, 2009

The Bar must establish misconduct by clear and convincing evidence, i.e., “evidence establishing that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” In re Cohen, 316 Or 657, 659 , 853 P2d 286 (1993). … See ORS 114.305(18) (“a personal representative, acting reasonably for the benefit of interested persons, is authorized to [e]mploy qualified persons, including attorneys, accountants and investment advisers, to *682 advise

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.

Toth v. Ina Life Insurance Co. of New York

638 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 14, 2009

Plaintiff moves for a summary judgment establishing her entitlement to those benefits. … Objectively viewed, the totality of the evidence clearly establishes that plaintiff lacks the physical capacity and concentration needed to sustain competitive employment in any field.

Simpson v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

237 Or. App. 661 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 2010

The record before the board established that petitioner had a 1985 California conviction of two counts of the crime of lewd act with a child. … Although petitioner’s crime would not qualify for imposition of those lifetime conditions under that provision, part of his prior sex offense was committed while the victim was under age 12.

Harisay v. Clarno

367 Or. 116 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 8, 2020

We now turn to that question. 3 Plaintiffs also assert that, even if IP 5 does not qualify as a “law,” it could go forward as a “proposition or question.” … Supreme Court, while never directly deciding, has indicated that in matters pertaining to the amending process, the assent of State Governors is unnecessary because the State legislatures are performing a Federal function—clearly

State v. Phillips

314 Or. 460 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1992

While the Federal Rules of Evidence does not in terms refer to attacking the witness by showing bias, interest, corruption, or coercion, it clearly contemplates the use of [those] methods of impeachment.” … * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him * * 5 The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities

In Re Estate of Heck

120 Or. 80 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1926

Appellant, in assignments of error, says: “That said sections, as construed, grant to certain citizens or classes of citizens privileges and immunities which do not upon the same terms belong to all citizens equally.” *82 … While appellant does not challenge the above 'method of computation, we have thus shown it in order to present clearly the constitutional question involved.

Hoyt Street Properties, L.L.C. v. Burlington Northern & Santa Santa Fe Railway Co.

38 F. Supp. 2d 1185 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 14, 1999

A primary source of the contamination on the Property is diesel or fuel oil, which clearly qualifies as a commodity and was productively used by Defendant in its railyard operations. … Additionally, the lead is a substance out of which something can be fashioned, which qualifies it as a material under Defendant’s definition.

Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Redden

458 F. Supp. 593 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 15, 1978

Each is qualified to do business in Oregon. Defendant Redden (Attorney Gen *595 eral) is the Attorney General of the State of Oregon. … The first two factors mentioned are clearly met in this case.

Carter v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 080689c (or.tax 4-30-2009)

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 30, 2009

The statute provides in relevant part: "A qualified taxpayer shall be allowed a credit against the taxes otherwise due under ORS Chapter 316 equal to the applicable percentage of the qualified taxpayer's child care expenses … That would clearly be inappropriate.

Braskett v. Fender

884 F. Supp. 2d 1119 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 3, 2012

Braskett clearly stated that while Mr. Braskett had become increasingly verbally abusive towards her, he had never been physically violent towards her or the children. 15 Mrs. … In addition, the defendants claim that even if Braskett could show his constitutional rights were violated, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment because qualified immunity shields them from liability.