Case law

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.

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.

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.

Matter of Alexander

26 Or. App. 943 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 1976

In any event, the legislature clearly has rejected the traditional philosophy applied to mental commitment proceedings of 'when in doubt, commit.’ … "A A qualified yes. I have spoken to her and observed her. You indicated that I did not.”

Weiss v. Kohlhagen

58 Or. 144 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1911

This is clearly in answer to the allegation of plaintiff that defendant gave him no notice. … Justice Wolverton remarks: “The general rule is that the opinions of witnesses are not evidence, but to this there are two notable and well-established exceptions, both of which are said to rest upon a clear necessity, that

Townsend v. Jones

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 4, 2024

He recommended denying Defendants’ request for summary judgment as to the June 2018 and March 2018 attacks on the basis of qualified immunity. Id. at 8. … Plaintiff points to the stipulated facts of his housing history and testimony about the risks Plaintiff faced on the general population housing units to argue the evidence is sufficient to establish that all Defendants

Bird v. Norpac Foods, Inc.

132 Or. App. 349 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 4, 1995

ORS 734.510(4) clearly and comprehensively defines “covered claims.” Conversely, ORS 734.640(1) is a priority statute, limiting OIGA’s obligation to pay “covered claims.” … Moreland qualified as an uninsured motorist under Bird’s policy because his motor vehicle insurer had been declared insolvent.

Johnson and Johnson

309 Or. App. 682 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 10, 2021

The evidence also was sufficient to establish a change of circumstances in Botofan-Miller. … So clearly there is motive to come up with your own perspective and did not take any safety measures around those concerns. That’s concerning to me.”

Transamerica Insurance v. United States National Bank

276 Or. 945 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1976

The trial court properly applied the accepted rules of construction that a contract will not be construed to provide immunity from the consequences of a party’s own negligence unless that intention is clearly and unequivocally … Nevertheless, the deception practiced by Smith is clearly a mere variation on the kinds of deception that these provisions were intended to cover. 7 The general pattern of these sections is to absolve a payor bank, which

Gibeau v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 091478b (or.tax 12-10-2010)

Oregon Tax Court · Dec 10, 2010

CONCLUSION Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427. … Plaintiffs in this case have clearly met that statutory requirement. Accordingly, their appeal must be granted.

Portland General Electric Co. v. Department of Revenue

7 Or. Tax 33 · Oregon Tax Court · Mar 1, 1977

The scope of the imposition should be clearly expressed. … A reading of the six subsections contained in the statute shows an intent to establish rough rules of thumb.

Smith v. Sanne

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 16, 2022

immunity. … immunity.

State v. Vosika

83 Or. App. 298 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 14, 1987

Clearly, the information that her mother was the abuser was important in diagnosing the abuse and treating the child. Sabin had a duty to report the abuse. … Sabin clearly relied on that fact in diagnosing the problem and recommending treatment.

State v. Jayne

173 Or. App. 533 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 25, 2001

Grimsbo, of Intermountain Forensic Laboratories, and qualified him as an expert in the field of urinalysis testing. … Here, by comparison, all of the experts agreed that the urinalysis evidence simply cannot properly be viewed as having a direct correlation to the impairment of the subject at the time of the accident. 7 Clearly, whether

Campos v. Jensen

296 Or. App. 402 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 6, 2019

In particular, defendant contended that under Neumann , 358 Or. 706 , 369 P.3d 1117 , her statements qualified as opinions that *543 were protected by the First Amendment and were, therefore, not actionable. … Read as a whole, the statements clearly reflect [defendant's] personal and subjective impressions and opinions based on her support for Ms. Ferguson." Plaintiff appealed.

Martinez v. Cain

293 Or. App. 434 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 15, 2018

Robbery and aggravated murder clearly are set out in two different statutory provisions, ORS 164.415 and ORS 163.095. … In my view, only one of the court's statements in footnote 4 was clearly correct: Robbery and aggravated murder are set out in two different statutory provisions.

State v. Bartmess

33 Or. 110 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1898

It will be observed that the witness qualifies the statement imputed to him by making it his own, instead of acknowledging that it was Bartmess’ declaration ; and this being so, and the alleged admission being material, the … The views of this court on the latter clause of said section were clearly illustrated in State v. Lurch, 12 Or. 99 , ( 6 Pac. 408 ), and State v.

Pulido v. United Parcel Service General Services Co.

31 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 8, 1998

MeCloskey’s statement was not ambivalent; it was a clearly written declaration. This case does not involve parties who agree when the injury took place or that the injury was immediately apparent. See Crego v. … In those cases, both employers receive the benefit of workers’ compensation immunity.

Jessie-Uyanik v. Russell

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2022

immunity. … Therefore, the Court declines to reach Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments.