Case law

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. Pinnell

311 Or. 98 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1991

Its right to introduce such evidence is, as previously stated, clearly established. … Even a long list of similarities does not necessarily establish an inference of distinctiveness. Id.

Davis v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District

45 F. Supp. 3d 1222 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 8, 2014

legislature intended that the benefits of a veteran’s preference be given at only one stage and that an employer could choose which stage to give the preference, the legislature could have, and likely would have, said so more clearly … Rather, TriMet argues that other candidates were more qualified. The evidence does not show that other candidates were more qualified as a matter of law.

State v. Riley

195 Or. App. 377 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 22, 2004

Clearly, the asserted error—counting defendant’s juvenile adjudication as part of his criminal history so as to lengthen his sentence—is purely legal, nor does addressing it require us to look beyond the record. … That split in the circuits by itself establishes that the trial court’s use of defendant’s juvenile adjudication in calculating his sentence was not obviously and indisputably error.

State v. Koennecke

274 Or. 169 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1976

This case, however, involved evidence which is not clearly "favorable” to the defendant and "material” to his guilt or innocence. … The State has requested the trial date, has requested the defendant to first enter the plea to establish that a trial is necessary and the State would be bound by any order of the Court refusing to permit witnesses to testify

Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Quickturn Design Systems, Inc.

999 F. Supp. 1388 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 15, 1997

Further, Quiekturn argues that the loss of these sales to Mentor will have repercussions throughout Quiekturn, causing it to lose qualified, trained sale representatives because of decreasing commissions, limiting its ability … [I]t is clearly established that Smith knew of the Hughes patents when it designed the F series bits and took a calculated risk that it might infringe those patents.

Friends of Eugene v. City of Eugene

196 Or. App. 771 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2004

Taylor, 4 American Land Planning Law § 79:8 (2003) (listing elements of ordinance definitions of‘accessory use’ as requiring that the use be related to the principal use, be ‘subordinate and clearly incidental to the principal … In some circumstances, a proposed development may qualify as an auxiliary use under the Metro Plan. In other circumstances, however, the proposed development may not qualify.

State v. Davis

291 Or. App. 146 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 4, 2018

The inference is clearly there. That's relevant. That's consciousness of some guilt on his part. It is relevant. The State-it's a balancing test. The State is in need of the evidence. … context for defendant's statements or to establish their effect on defendant. 3 We agree with the state that it is immaterial whether the victim's statements qualify as adoptive admissions under OEC 801(4)(b)(B), because

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

State v. McHenry

161 Or. App. 606 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 7, 1999

It may establish the relevance of expert testimony under OEC 401. 5 It may establish the extent to which the relevance is outweighed by unfair prejudice in admitting the evidence under OEC 403. 6 And it may establish the … We cannot say that the court’s ruling in this case is clearly against reason and evidence, and, therefore, an abuse of discretion. See Casciato v. Oregon Liquor Control Com., 181 Or 707, 717 , 185 P2d 246 (1947).

Hill v. Hill

323 Or. App. 458 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2022

In October 2017, wife hired attorney Williams, a specialist in PERS qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs), to draft an order setting forth the terms of the general judgment’s division of husband’s PERS pension, pursuant … that the supplemental judgment should be set aside because it is inconsistent with the general judgment, which he argues should control and which made no mention of the Money Match portion of husband’s pension and very clearly

McManus v. Auchincloss

271 Or. App. 765 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 17, 2015

Schmaing, 254 Or App 115, 137 , 296 P3d 529 (2012) (concluding that ORS 676.170, which grants civil immunity to a person who supplies a good faith report to a health professional regulatory board, is a statutory source of … However, managerial decisions that might give rise to conventional employment-related claims do not necessarily “qualify as intentional infliction of severe mental distress” unless they are also “the kind of aggravated acts

Beard v. Beard

66 Or. 512 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1913

given office — the certificate of the auditor, which is conclusive until it is affirmatively overthrown, is properly held prima facie evidence that the person named in it has been elected, and is therefore, if he has duly qualified … warranto, and not mandamus, is the proper remedy to try the disputed title to a corporate office, and if that were the purpose of this litigation, we would unhesitatingly declare plaintiff had mischosen his remedy; but as it clearly

Harris v. Merz

District Court, D. Oregon · May 15, 2025

I am [federally] qualified as disabled b/c of Saif Jnma [sic]. Khalifa Mohammed Alfuqaei UAE resident who knew in 2019 what happen[ed] didn’t CARE! … Plaintiff should clearly and briefly explain what has happened, how she has been injured, and why she believes the named defendants should be held liable for the injury.

Olson v. State Industrial Accident Commission

222 Or. 407 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1960

The defendant bases its contention — that the record fails to establish the deceased sustained an accidental injury arising out of his employment — upon its interpretation of the 1957 amendments to the Workmen’s Compensation … Prior to the 1957 amendment, in. construing the word “accident,” which was undefined, but qualified by the words “violent and external means,” this court said: “The word ‘accident’, -as used in the statute, is taken in its

Friends of Marion County v. Marion County

233 Or. App. 488 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 2010

However, because the parties accept the proposition that “the Goal 2 requirement for an adequate factual base is equivalent to the requirement for substantial evidence in the whole record,” and petitioners clearly preserved … Goal 11 provides that, “[ljocal [governments shall not allow the establishment or extension of sewer systems outside urban growth boundaries * * * except where the new or extended system is the only practicable alternative

State v. Johnson

339 Or. 69 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2005

The rule provides, rather clearly, that trial delay becomes an issue when a defendant is charged. … That amendment clearly had no effect on the overall operation of the speedy trial statutes.

Oregon-Columbia Chapter AGC v. ODOT (S071452)

373 Or. 405 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 10, 2025

The stated purpose of that CWA was to provide “additional terms and conditions for certain ODOT public improvement projects that qualify as ‘Covered Projects’ ” as defined in the CWA. … “Most public contracts, for example, are exempt from rulemaking procedures [under ORS 183.335(10)], even if they contain terms that otherwise qualify as ‘rules.’ ” Homestyle Direct, LLC v.

Gunter

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 2026

witness has to be sufficiently qualified to render the opinion[.]” … Defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right under the 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefor is not subject to immunity.” Am. Compl at 2.

GTE Northwest Inc. v. Oregon Public Utility Commission

179 Or. App. 46 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 2002

He stated that the bill, if adopted, would give counties that power because transportation for the elderly was clearly a matter of county concern. … “That exception to the general rule has been qualified further by a requirement that any grant of extramural authority be ‘clearly expressed.’ As the Supreme Court explained in Richards et al v.