Case law

Smith v. Sanne

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 16, 2022

immunity. … immunity.

Cohen v. Russell

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2022

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

State v. Drew

302 Or. App. 232 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 12, 2020

In par- ticular, if the trial court clearly decided an issue on a basis that the respondent does not defend but which we determine was correct, we will affirm on that basis, notwithstanding the respondent’s lack of defense … In an excess of cau- tion, however, defendant also briefly addresses each alter- native means of establishing a “significant physical injury,” including serious and temporary disfigurement under ORS 137.712(6)(c)(B).4 To

Humbert v. Sellars

300 Or. 113 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1985

II In her petition for review, the plaintiff urges that we should “abolish the immunity afforded to landlords and * * * apply general negligence principles to the relationship between landlords and tenants.” 2 We need not … Ill The drafters of ORS 91.770 aimed to establish minimum standards of health, safety, comfort and convenience that rental units must meet in order to be “habitable.”

Landwatch Lane Cnty. v. Lane Cnty.

364 Or. 724 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2019

LandWatch does not dispute that the dwellings that formerly existed on landowner's property were "lawfully established." … First, a dwelling that is less than five years old would not qualify to be replaced under this subsection even if it had been taxed as a dwelling since it had first been occupied.

Simi v. LTI Inc. - Lynden Inc.

301 Or. App. 535 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 2019

LTI Inc. - Lynden Inc., 300 Or App 258, 453 P3d 587 (2019) (remanding for reconsideration order rejecting occupational disease claim because of claimant’s failure to establish a contribution from “general work activities” … claims. * * * 4 As relevant, ORS 656.267 provides: “(1) To initiate omitted medical condition claims under ORS 656.262 (6)(d) or new medical condition claims under this section, the worker must clearly

Buck v. ACandS, Inc.

211 Or. App. 324 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 14, 2007

Significantly, however, the court was not called upon to determine whether the defendant, as an employer, should have possessed such knowledge; indeed, the court clearly limited the inquiry to the defendant’s knowledge in … The affidavit or declaration shall be made in good faith based on admissible facts or opinions obtained from a qualified expert who has actually been retained by the attorney who is available and willing to testify and who

Haberman-Ducey v. Russell

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2022

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

Lee James Barley, II v. ArcBest II, Inc., dba U-PACK; Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 11, 2026

Defendants assert that this is insufficient to establish that Marksthaler had the education, training, experience, and expertise to qualify as an expert in the strap or trailer door. … The court intervenes only when it can say that the actor’s conduct clearly meets the standard or clearly falls below it.”).

Sunset Lake Water Service District v. Remington

45 Or. App. 973 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 1980

There is no reason why a dedicator may not qualify his dedication, and if the dedication is accepted the public takes it subject to the uses reserved. Smith v. Gardner, 12 Or 221 , 6 P 771 , 53 AR 342 (1885). Cf. … As the plaintiff’s statutory arguments establish, the reservation does not strip municipal authorities of their control over the streets. See ORS 758.010(2), supra.

Port Investment Co. v. Oregon Mutual Fire Insurance

163 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1939

of law; The court was clearly right in the first ground of its decision; as to the second, for reasons which will pres: ently appear, we withhold comment. … It is ordinarily stated that a custom or usage inconsistent with the plain and unambiguous terms of a contract cannot be interposed to contradict or qualify its provisions: Interior Warehouse Co. v.

Johnson v. SAIF

369 Or. 579 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 21, 2022

This court later summarized the holding of the Barrett cases clearly and succinctly: “Barrett determined that the worker’s permanent partial disability was the full amount of his new impairment, without reduction for the … To qualify for the limited combined condition exception, there must be a legally cognizable preexisting condition that has combined with the otherwise compensable injury.

Spada Properties, Inc. v. Unified Grocers, Inc.

38 F. Supp. 3d 1223 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 15, 2014

Unified is a secured seller of non-PACA qualified food and also supplies groceries to Food 4 Less. … USC responds that the written agreement between USC and Food 4 Less stated clearly that payment was due within ten days of delivery.

Doyle v. City of Medford

Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2014

Does it clearly let both the court and the actor know in advance what conduct is prohibited? … We further concluded that, by using the phrase “insofar as and to the extent possible,” the legislature had intended to qualify the duty created by its use of the word “shall.” Id.

Mead v. Russell

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2022

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

Kristiansen v. Russell

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2022

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

Jessie-Uyanik v. Russell

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2022

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

Ketcher v. Jones

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 2, 2022

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

Minor v. SAIF Corp. (In re Minor)

290 Or. App. 537 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 28, 2018

Telew diagnosed major depressive disorder but disagreed that claimant had PTSD, writing: "The worker clearly has a stressful job being a 911 dispatcher, but I saw absolutely no evidence that she developed definitive posttraumatic … In addition, there must be "no indication that, in making its decision, the board relied on evidence that did not qualify as substantial evidence." Jenkins v.

Transportation Equipment Rentals, Inc. v. Oregon Automobile Insurance

257 Or. 288 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1970

The original complaint clearly stated a cause of action on the insurance binder. … Although it does not clearly appear from the opinion, the abstract of record *300 in Yoshida discloses that the insurance proceeds had been paid into court.