Case law

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.

Willamette Egg Farms, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

331 Or. 327 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 2000

The plain, natural, and ordinary meaning of “related” is “connected by reason of an established or discoverable relation.”Id. at 1916. … Taxpayer’s argument renders meaningless the qualifying phrase “directly related.”

Hernandez v. Oregon House of Representatives

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 20, 2021

It is well established that federal, state, and regional legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability for their legislative activities. Bogan v. Scott- Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 46 (1998); Tenney v. … “An absolute immunity defeats a suit [for damages] at the outset, so long as the official’s actions were within the scope of the immunity.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 419 n.13 (1976).

State v. Moore

45 Or. App. 837 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 14, 1980

However, there was also in the file the order containing the language quoted above that clearly delineated two functions to be performed and unambiguously directed that one of them was to be performed for the sole use and … The facts and circumstances of the homicide were well established in the evidence and were not seriously *844 challenged by the defendant.

Maier v. Pacific Heritage Homes, Inc.

72 F. Supp. 2d 1184 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 18, 1999

The offer of employment, printed on Pacific Heritage Homes letterhead, clearly states that Maier will be an employee of Pacific Heritage Homes. … It states that Maier “will qualify for an annual bonus of 30% to 50% of [his] base salary.” Id. The phrase “will qualify” is mandatory, not discretionary.

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.’

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

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

Osornio v. Reyes

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 12, 2024

A state court decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if the state court identifies the correct legal principle but applies it in an “objectively unreasonable” manner. Woodford v. … In sum, PCR court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when denying Petitioner’s claims, and he is not entitled to federal habeas relief.

In re Crum

103 Or. 296 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1922

-The law-making power of the State of Oregon has placed the authority and responsibility upon this court to determine who are qualified to become its officers as attorneys. … While the proceeding is civil, and not criminal, yet more than a preponderance of the evidence is required, and the guilt of the attorney must be clearly established: In re Evans, 22 Utah, 366 [ 62 Pac. 913 , 83 Am. St.

Cornelius v. Bay Motors Inc.

258 Or. 564 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1971

Key-lock operated several trucks in his business and was a qualified aircraft mechanic. Defendant’s salesman had previously sold some 20 cars or trucks to Mr. Keylock. … Defendant’s salesman testified that he was also a qualified aircraft mechanic and that before selling this car to Mr.

State v. Efimoff

346 Or. App. 402 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 7, 2026

Once there is case law establishing the required mental state for an element, it becomes plain error not to have instructed the jury in that manner—even if the case was tried before the new case law published, as we decide … Cite as 346 Or App 402 (2026) 411 was not argued in the trial court, even if a different mental state was argued in the trial court—unless, of course, the error qualifies as plain.

State Ex Rel. Coast Holding Co. v. Ekwall

144 Or. 672 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1933

It is a well established rule in this state that in a mandamus proceeding the petition is no part of the pleadings. Section 8-309, Oregon Code 1930. … Clearly, such procedure as that provided in the stipulation constitutes an innovation not contemplated by the statute and, if it should be upheld as a precedent for future cases, it would thrust upon the courts unusual and

Police Automatic Weapons Services, Inc. v. Benson

837 F. Supp. 1070 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 5, 1993

When the claim is against the United States, principles of sovereign immunity require that the waiver of liability be strictly limited to the terms of the statute. United States v. … Section 5845(b) of the NFA clearly contemplates that a combination of parts from which a *1075 machine gun can be assembled constitutes a “maehinegun” for purposes of the Act.

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

State v. Azar

389 F. Supp. 3d 898 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 29, 2019

For the Final Rule, this is a problem, as it is well established that Congress "may amend substantive law in an appropriations statute, as long as it does so clearly." Robertson v. … Additionally, the Azar court concluded such harm is sufficient to establish a likelihood of irreparable injury.

Rossolo v. Multnomah County Elections Division

272 Or. App. 572 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 29, 2015

MCC section 1.002 provides: “The following definitions and rules of construction shall be observed, unless inconsistent with the intent of the Board of Commissioners or the context clearly requires otherwise. "***** “ORDINANCE … Another city’s practice of naming and renaming streets only through a process akin to that established [in Portland’s code] may establish that the activity is ‘administrative’ and not subject to the initiative and referendum

In Re Willamette Timber Systems, Inc.

54 B.R. 485 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Oct 30, 1985

Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c) and 9006(b)(3) when read together clearly enunciate a policy that under the circumstances described in Rule 3002(c) the court, unless the facts fall within a listed exception of 3002(c), may not extend … satisfied all the criteria for employment pursuant to 11 U.S.C.A. § 327 (West 1979) and Rule 215 [now 2014(a)] of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure at or before the time services were actually commenced and remained qualified

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

State ex rel. State Office for Services to Children & Families v. Klamath Tribe

170 Or. App. 106 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2000

It is within the absolute discretion and authority of the Tribe to establish its criteria for membership. However, the Tribe has no inherent authority over non-Indians. … To the extent that the agreement applies to “Klamath children” who do not qualify as Indian children under ICWA, it exceeds SCF’s applicable statutory authority.