Case law

Corvallis Nbhd. Housing Svcs. v. Linn Cty. Assessor

21 Or. Tax 95 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 27, 2013

Assessor some clearly admissible material. For this reason the court overrules the objection of the taxing authorities. B. … The retirees in Friendsview Manor collectively put up the capital to establish and operate their retirement home. 247 Or at 96.

In re the Marriage of Tomos

165 Or. App. 82 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 12, 2000

Husband also presented expert testimony that wife could earn between $25,000 and $33,000 per year in one of several professions for which he asserted she was qualified. … The trial court clearly believed that the gap in the parties’ incomes both was real and would likely endure.

State Ex Rel. Academy Press, Ltd. v. Beckett

282 Or. 701 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1978

Campbell, 250 Or 262, 273 , 442 P2d 215 (1968), cert denied, 393 US 1093 (1969), that due process limitations "are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. … It is not clearly established whether Oregon courts have similar discretion, although Homer v.

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.

In re the Marriage of Malpass

255 Or. App. 233 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 13, 2013

Here, mother clearly is the custodial parent and the only parent entitled to the exemptions under federal law.” (Emphasis added.) *236 We conclude that wife failed to preserve that argument. … The trial court orally ruled, as relevant here, that the temporary child support would remain in place until husband’s income was established.

Hill v. US PLYWOOD-CHAMPION COMPANY

12 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 1, 1972

"Under the odd-lot doctrine, once the evidence has established prima facie that Claimant falls in the odd-lot category, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to show that some kind of suitable work is regularly and continuously … All fishermen would qualify for permanent total on this basis. The fact that he skippers the boat but does not haul in crab nets still bespeaks of capabilities inconsistent with a claim of permanent total.

State v. Spieler

269 Or. App. 623 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 18, 2015

The trial court denied the motion, noting that, in light of the defense burden to establish the extreme emotional disturbance defense “and given that by its questions of this [witness] it has suggested that there would be … First, one fundamental aspect of Wederski is not qualified by any of the subsequent case law: The prosecutor cannot either implicitly or explicitly invite the factfinder to consider nonadmitted evidence “in aid of the state

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.

Strunk v. Public Employees Retirement Board

338 Or. 145 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 8, 2005

It is also equally well established that the intention of the Legislature thus to create contractual obligations, resulting in extinguishment to a certain extent of governmental powers, must clearly and unmistakably appear … In other words, the text of ORS 238.200(l)(a) (2001) and its statutory context do not establish clearly and unambiguously that the legislature intended to promise members *193 that they could contribute six percent of their

State v. Nichols

361 Or. 101 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2017

The state responded that defen- dant’s statement did not qualify as an invocation, either unequivocal or equivocal. … Article I, section 12, establishes a right against compelled self-incrimination.5 To protect that right, police must give Miranda warnings to a suspect who is in custody or in other- wise compelling circumstances.

Holmes v. Appling

237 Or. 546 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 25, 1964

It is well established that when a constitution specifies the manner in which it may be amended or revised, it can be altered by those who favor amendments, revision, or other change only through the use of one of the specified … cannot determine for yourself whether the same shall be enacted into law or not.’ ” If a revised or a new constitution were to be adopted by the people in a manner or through a procedure authorized by the constitution, clearly

Cunio v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 20, 2020

In a habeas case concerning non-homicide offenses, the Ninth Circuit held that a state court decision was contrary to clearly established federal law because there is no material difference, for Eighth Amendment purposes … Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity are affirmative defenses. Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062, 1075 (9th Cir. 2010). They must be pled in the Answer or they are waived. Id.; see also Fordyce v.

Garten Foundation v. Department of Revenue

12 Or. Tax 554 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 2, 1993

Apparently plaintiff believed that, because the equipment had been incorporated into its real property, it would qualify for exemption. … The statute clearly requires the application for exemption to be filed not later than April 1 of each year. It is important to note two differences between ORS 307.162 and ORS 307.112.

Lyons v. Nike, Inc.

874 F. Supp. 2d 986 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 7, 2012

Nike responds that Lyons’s own testimony does not qualify as expert testimony because he was neither named nor qualified as an expert witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 *994 and this court’s order calling for … Here, in contrast to Enzo, the court finds that Nike has not met its burden to establish, clearly and convincingly, that the '448 Patent is invalid as obvious. 5 Although Lyons may not have made the evidentiary showing necessary

Capital Lumbering Co. v. Hall

9 Or. 93 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1881

They insist that the judicial character of the proceeding is established by giving to it a judicial effect, in divesting vested rights of action which are valuable and to be considered as property. … The sheriff then summons a jury, to try the right of property, of six persons qualified as jurors, between the parties, and gives five days’ notice of the time and place of trial to the plaintiff in the process, or his attorney

State v. Cabanilla

351 Or. 622 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 2012

813.410. 17 "(k) The information provided to the person shall include the number 18 of days within which a hearing under ORS 813.410 will be held. 19 "(l) The person may possibly qualify … argues that admission of defendant's refusal to take the breath test violated his federal right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and violated the Privileges and Immunities

Capos v. Clatsop County

144 Or. 510 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1933

Ct. 952 ), for their conclusion that due process of law demands an arraignment and the entry of a plea prior to trial and that a judgment of conviction which fads to clearly state that such preliminaries took place must be … the course of the common law as in our present case, but were predicated upon special statutes prescribing the manner in which jurisdiction could be obtained over the defendant. *525 Judgments in criminal proceedings are immune

Bonnichsen v. United States, Department of the Army

969 F. Supp. 628 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 27, 1997

The Supreme Court concluded that this was not enough to establish standing. … "Where a statute authorizes official conduct which is patently violative of fundamental constitutional principles, an officer who enforces that statute is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Id. at 1209 .

State Ex Rel. Aspen Group, Inc. v. Washington County Board of Commissioners

150 Or. App. 371 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 8, 1997

Again, the question is not whether intervenor “won the case”; she clearly did not. The question is whether her participation was of a kind that future prospective litigants should be discouraged from undertaking. … For the reasons given in the text, the answer to that question is also no. 7 A mandamus action under ORS 215.428(7) is not a procedure that the legislature established to provide counties with an alternative to making the

Sterling v. Klamath Forest Protective Ass'n

19 Or. App. 383 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 18, 1974

The application was rejected and shortly thereafter an apparently less qualified person was hired to fill the job. Mr. Sterling is a black man — the man hired was white. … Joyce, supra, dealt with a case of discrimination arising out of the refusal to rent an apartment to a qualified applicant because of race.