Case law

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.

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.

State v. McWoods

320 Or. App. 728 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 13, 2022

There are other discrepan- cies between the answers given by juror number 6 and how the state characterized those answers for the court, none of which, separately, or together, clearly establish purposeful racial discrimination … The plausibility of the state’s race-neutral reasons for excus- ing an otherwise qualified Black juror decreased with the second strike.

Kelly v. Dalles City

19 Or. 299 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 23, 1890

Said Bigelow was doubtless a qualified person to take a claim under said act, and, so far as I am able to discover, performed all the conditions and requirements necessary under it to entitle him to the benefit of its provisions … suitable portions, the boundaries of which to be clearly marked by natural or other objects and indicated by numbers on a map to be prepared for the convenience of future reference.

Curtis v. MRI IMAGING SERVICES II

327 Or. 9 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1998

Clearly, at least some conditions and events that the law deems to be purely psychological qualify as medical concerns in the mind of a medical professional. … Judgment on the pleadings is permissible only if the allegations, when taken in their entirety and viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, affirmatively establish that the plaintiff has no claim. Hawkins v.

Menefee v. Washington County Circuit Court

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 4, 2020

Should plaintiff file an Amended Complaint 3 - ORDER TO DISMISS curing the substantive deficiencies noted below, the Court advises plaintiff to clearly identify all intended … Absolute prosecutorial immunity is not defeated by a showing of malicious or wrongful conduct. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431.

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.

Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc.

329 Or. 62 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1999

An Act to Establish the Territorial Government of Oregon, Section 14 (reprinted in General Laws of Oregon, pp 66, 75 ( Deady 1845 -1865) ). … This regular method of control was found in the growth of the practice of granting new trials if the verdict was clearly contrary to the weight of evidence.’

Maddox v. Clackamas County School District No. 25

293 Or. 27 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1982

The term of employment is established by contract as one year but, as the contract acknowledges, that term is subject to termination pursuant to statute. … Plaintiff does not challenge this judgment on appeal. 3 We are mindful of suggestions to judicially qualify employers’ discretion to terminate, see Note, Protecting At Will Employees Against Wrongful Discharge: The Duty To

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

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

Daniel-Elliott and Daniel

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 26, 2024

Second, by September of 2022, wife had made several attempts to refinance the home but had been unable to qualify for a refinance that would allow her to pull out cash in a sufficient amount to pay husband Cite as 333 Or … The creation of that new relationship constituted a substantive addition to the terms of the original judgment because it established new rights and obligations for the parties in their respective roles as a judgment creditor

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 .

Brown v. Apfel

991 F. Supp. 1232 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 27, 1998

If at any time in the future you think you qualify for payment, please contact us immediately about filing a new application. We cannot make payment for any month before the month in which you apply. … Brown has the burden of providing the evidence needed to establish her entitlement to reopen. See Panages v. Bowen, 871 F.2d 91, 93 (9th Cir.1989), citing Kail v.

State v. Ciancanelli

181 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 24, 2002

Judge Brewer also insists that we have misconstrued what qualifies as a "historical exception" under Article I, section 8. "True" historical exceptions, he says, "do not trap us in a time warp of our own device." … See, e.g., Bishop, 1 Commentaries on the Criminal Law § 379 at 419 (noting that keeping a "bawdy-house" is an offense at common law); Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanors at 322 ("It is clearly agreed that keeping

Ehrman v. Galloway

160 Or. 418 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1938

All the capital stock of the corporation has at all times been owned by the partnership, with the exception of qualifying shares for directors, of which qualifying shares, however, the partnership has at all times been the … The facts as hereinbefore related clearly show that the corporation was solely an adjunct to the business of the partnership.

State v. Savage

36 Or. 191 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1900

It is urged that the shexiff, though not a'party to the action, was interested in the result thereof, and hence the court erred in not appointing some qualified person in his stead to select the talesmen, and also erred in … Notwithstanding the trial court, in admitting evidence of other inculpatory acts, may be clearly satisfied that proof of one criminal act necessarily connects the defendant with, and affords evidence of his commission of,

Natwick v. Moyer

177 Or. 486 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1945

Clearly, therefore, his testimony respecting the result of the test was pure hearsay so far as the defendants were concerned. … We think that when intoxication is the issue, testimony by a qualified witness as to the result of a blood test has probative value and should be received.

Shaffner v. City of Salem

201 Or. 45 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1954

Some of these business establishments are a direct result of changes in classification made since the adoption of Salem’s zoning code. … We will first refer only to those business locations within the affected area, as defined for the purpose of qualifying petitioners or remonstrators under that code.

State v. Rogoway

45 Or. 601 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1904

H. 364, erroneously cited as 48 Cal. in the Moran Case, “is purely a question of fact — as much so as the question whether a witness offered to testify was interested or mot, or whether a witness was qualified to testify … the admission of the confession would be useless, except to prove Ihe agency of the accused, and would operate as an exclusion of the confession for any other purpose, whereas, *609 if freely and voluntarily made, it is clearly