Case law

State Ex Rel. Engweiler v. Powers

232 Or. App. 214 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 25, 2009

The defendant had argued to the trial court that his skateboard did not qualify because vehicles are something that one drives, and one does not drive a skateboard. … The parties clearly put before the trial court the meaning of ORS 144.120(1)(a) (1989).

State v. Chavez-Meza

301 Or. App. 373 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 18, 2019

It is well established that confessions are presumed to be involuntary. Id. (citing Powell, 352 Or at 225-26; State v. Stevens, 311 Or 119, 137, 806 P2d 92 (1991)). … Those statements also did not suggest that, if defendant confessed, he might receive immunity or leniency.

Miller v. Agripac, Inc.

322 Or. App. 202 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 5, 2022

“In truth the distinction must be clearly explained to the jury because we have held that contributory negligence is a defense in an action for gross negligence but is not a defense in an action for wanton misconduct.” … It fol- lows, under well-established case law, that the defense of comparative fault is unavailable to defendant. E.

Gund v. Marion County

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 9, 2025

Likely because the Supreme Court has already established that Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity with respect to Title II of the ADA “as it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right … To establish an ADA or RA violation, a plaintiff must (1) be a qualified individual with a disability, (2) who was denied a reasonable accommodation that is needed for her “to enjoy meaningful access to the benefits of

Rock v. Francis

133 Or. App. 80 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 15, 1995

Past profits may be established, and the value of the good will estimated therefrom as a basis, subject to being reduced by a showing of a depression in trade or other circumstances that would tend to make the business less … There is, however, testimony that Kysar kept the two types of damages clearly distinct. We find no abuse of discretion. Affirmed.

Agristor Credit Corp. v. Schmidlin

601 F. Supp. 1307 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 23, 1985

Smith moves for summary judgment on all claims against it on the grounds of corporate immunity. … The defect alleged here, however, clearly involves a danger to property other than the product itself.

Devin Oil Co. v. Morrow County

275 Or. App. 799 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 2015

A decision to extend that very same approval, notwithstanding the lack of any extension language in MCZO 4.165(C), clearly adversely affects an interest personal to [petitioner].” (Citation omitted.) … Thus, Love’s and the county argue that the economic effects of the proposed development do not qualify petitioner as “adversely affected” under ORS 197.830(3).

Charmley v. Lewis

302 Or. 324 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1986

There is no suggestion in the opinion that, had there not been an eyewitness, the preferred evidence would have failed to qualify as proper habit evidence. … Merely because conduct is unusual or distinctive does not establish that it is a habit. On the other hand, many behaviors that would seem clearly to be habits are not distinctive.

State v. Page

330 Or. App. 672 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 14, 2024

M tes- tified that the color of the fresh paint was close, but clearly darker, than the existing paint. … The expense incurred to paint the undamaged walls qualifies as economic damages and the trial court did not err when it included that cost in restitution.

State v. George

287 Or. App. 312 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 23, 2017

“Precisely what suffices to ‘present [ ] clearly’ a particular position, for preservation purposes, is not something that can be explained by a neat verbal formula. … For that argument, defendant relies on wording in Kurokawa-Lasciak in which the court stated that, “to qualify for the automobile exception, the vehicle that the police search must be mobile at the time that police encounter

Friends of Yamhill County, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners

237 Or. App. 149 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 1, 2010

That vesting determination qualified the property as subject to special zoning allowances under a law recently adopted by the voters. … Thus, all qualified section 5(3) claimants have made expenditures that are particular to the waived use.

Dickinson v. Davis

26 Or. App. 285 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 2, 1976

Although the exact details of the arrangement are unclear, it appears that Woolwine established a parts division which was to lease trucks from Dickinson for $126 per month. … The word "modify” has been defined by our Supreme Court as follows: "* * * In a general sense, to modify means to change or vary, to qualify or reduce * * State v. Lawrence, 12 Or 297 , 7 P 116 (1885).

Lane County v. Land Conservation & Development Commission

138 Or. App. 635 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 24, 1996

The 1994 LCDC rules provide for the classification of qualifying agricultural land as “high-value farmland.” OAR 660-33-020(8). Uses on high-value farmland are limited to those specified by rule. OAR 660-33-090. … For example, LCDC relies on statements of Senator Cohen, who expressed the opinion that the new law “clearly does not interfere nor get in the way, and we wouldn’t expect [LCDC] to necessarily abolish [its] rules on high-value

State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Sauer

189 Or. App. 78 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 30, 2003

lack of reliability or corroboration. 1 The state concedes that it provided notice of its intent to rely on C’s hearsay statements only 10 days before trial, but it contends that its failure to meet the statutory deadline qualifies … We note that one hearsay statement cannot be used to provide corroboration for or indicate the reliability of other hearsay statements; the legislature clearly intended that a defendant not be convicted (or a juvenile found

State v. Thomas

53 Or. App. 375 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 3, 1981

She testified that she remembered clearly that it was on a Thursday and that it must have been on the 28th because it was near the end of the month. … Superficially, at least, a substantial benefit was conferred upon defendant when the court allowed the alibi witness to testify, even though the state was allowed to call defense counsel to establish the prior inconsistent

Logan v. D. W. Sivers Co.

343 Or. 339 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 18, 2007

To qualify as an “exchange” for purposes of 26 USC § 1031 , a replacement property must be designated as such *343 within 45 days of the sale of the original property and purchased with the gain realized on the original sale … The parties clearly intended, and clearly had the right to expect, that that disclaimer would shield them from any liability for failing to carry through with the sale that then was being contemplated.

Miller v. Lillard

228 Or. 202 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1961

This is clearly within the scope of the statute and the ruling of the trial judge was correct. … Among other activities, they established a watch on the Lillard place and made a close inspection of Ms herd.

State v. Cassidy

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 22, 2024

As defendant saw it, the legislature “clearly meant to protect businesses like hotels and cab services from people evading payment because they are commercial and held open to the public for the purpose of generating income … As the state sees it, a “vacation rental used to generate profit” qualifies as a “business facility” under ORS 164.125(1)(b).

Wood v. Taylor

307 Or. App. 688 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 2, 2020

Taylor belief” and hostility elements together, we concluded that “the undisputed evidence establishe[d] clearly and convinc- ingly that defendants and their predecessor, James, had an ‘honest belief’ that the disputed strip … Engelson, the defendants claimed adverse possession of land adjacent to their deeded property, but the testimony of one of the defendants “clearly establishe[d] that she had conscious doubt as to where the property line was

In Re Mathis

537 P.2d 148 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 23, 1975

This psychiatric therapy was given by an experienced doctor who appears to be eminently qualified in his field. The immediate and actual cause of the last runaway is not apparent. … Like Cardiel , this, too, was clearly "a one time thing."