Case law

State v. Morrow

158 Or. 412 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1937

In holding that the record was not admissible, the decision said: “The law as applicable to both these questions is clearly settled by this court in the case of Maple v. … Nothing established in the filiation proceeding became res adjudícala in the rape action.

Scheffel v. Oregon Beta Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity

273 Or. App. 390 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 2, 2015

The court intervenes only when it can say that the actor’s conduct clearly meets the standard or clearly falls below it.’” 303 Or at 18 (quoting Stewart, 255 Or at 607 ). … 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

State v. Pressel

2 Or. App. 477 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 7, 1970

At first while standing up the officers did not clearly understand the defendant's name and had him spell it. … The record is devoid of any other evidence of this important, yet easily established, fact.

Longview Inspection v. Snyder

182 Or. App. 530 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 10, 2002

Claimant’s attorney then argued in closing that the evidence, including in particular the evidence of a facet joint problem, established that the work-related injury was the major contributing cause of claimant’s condition … The worker must clearly request formal written acceptance of any new medical condition from the insurer or self-insured employer.”

State v. Chakerian

325 Or. 370 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1997

Robertson, 293 Or 402 , 649 P2d 569 (1982), this court established the framework for determining whether a law, on its face, violates Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. … That must be the case because, if a party’s conduct clearly is proscribed by a statute, then that statute by definition cannot be said to be vague in all its applications.

Lindland v. United Business Investments, Inc.

298 Or. 318 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1984

This alone establishes the breach of duty: conflict of interest or self-dealing is the breach of duty. … Here respondents’ complaint did not clearly allege any wrongful nondisclosure of the dual agency, and the issue was not explored by either side at trial.

Head v. Head

261 Or. App. 478 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 5, 2014

The trust language clearly demonstrated an intent that [Robert] should inherit all of [Cecilia’s] assets except to the extent necessary to preserve her tax exemption. … Accordingly, defendants assert that the legislature’s use of “is requested” does not clearly indicate that a party must request modification in order for a court to do so.

Wadsworth v. Talmage

365 Or. 558 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 10, 2019

The remedy has its lim- its, as “a constructive trust can attach only to items and money that the evidence clearly identifies as rightfully ‘belonging’ to the plaintiff, or to the identifiable products of, or substitutes … That is a contention advanced most clearly by Professor Emily Sherwin.

McHorse v. Portland General Electric Company

268 Or. 323 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1974

We conclude that plaintiff qualifies for total disability under the plan. … "In other words, the evidence clearly indicates you misrepresented your condition to Dr. Davis and to the Company.

Williams v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 19, 2021

However, the state will provide “reasonable accommodations” for “individuals unable to be vaccinated due to disability, qualifying medical condition, or sincerely held religious belief.” … Each Plaintiff has previously contracted and recovered from COVID-19 and each believes that their infection-based immunity is at least as effective as vaccination-based immunity.

State v. Cuevas

263 Or. App. 94 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 21, 2014

Applying that standard, we have found a similar sentencing error to be harmless where “the testimony of the victim * * * clearly established that each of the offenses was a separate incident; that is, they each occurred at … The uncontradicted testimony at trial establishes that Counts 3 and 7, and Counts 9 and 10, were all separate *115 criminal episodes.

Curry v. Hall

839 F. Supp. 1437 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 9, 1993

STANDARD OF REVIEW For purposes of a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c): Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be … Further, the Petition Clause does not provide absolute immunity to those who make false statements, even in the context of petitions to the government. McDonald v.

State v. Decleve

299 Or. App. 528 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 25, 2019

To qualify for plain-error review under ORAP 5.45, an error must be: (1) an error of law; (2) obvious and not reasonably in dispute; and (3) apparent on the record with- out requiring an appellate court to choose among competing … Thus, in the state’s view, because the record does not clearly demonstrate that the trial court had to use the shift-to-I rule in the first place, it is not plain error for the trial court to fail to use the 200-percent rule

Barnett v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P.

772 F. Supp. 2d 1328 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 23, 2011

Beneficiary’ means the person named or otherwise designated in a trust deed as the person for whose benefit a trust deed is given, or the person’s successor in interest, and who shall not be the trustee unless the beneficiary is qualified … Irreparable Harm The Court concludes Plaintiff also has established he is likely to experience irreparable harm if the scheduled foreclosure proceeds unabated.

Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State

150 Or. App. 106 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 17, 1997

legislative intent is unclear after examining text and context, then, and only then, may the court consider legislative history). 27 Because we reject plaintiffs civil rights claims on their merits, we do not address the issue of qualified … immunity. 28 For example, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment included a “stipulation” that plaintiff “made a timely request for an administrative hearing upon receipt of the notice of violation regarding the

Oregon Manufacturers and Commerce v. Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 20, 2022

Therefore, these entities are immune to suit in federal court. … Metcalf & Eddy, 506 U.S. 139, 144-45 (1993) (citation omitted) (Eleventh Amendment immunity is immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability).

U.S. Bancorp v. Department of Revenue

337 Or. 625 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 16, 2004

We do not suggest that those circumstances, without more, establish that the department intended OAR 150-314.280- (M) (1995) to operate retrospectively. … Almost a year later, Congress amended the tax code to eliminate that deduction retrospectively and, as a result of that amendment, the taxpayer no longer qualified for the deduction. Id. at 28-30 .

State v. Edmonds

364 Or. 410 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 28, 2019

Moreover, OEC 803(8) was derived from the common-law official records exception, "one of the well-established common law hearsay exceptions." State v. Copeland , 353 Or. 816 , 830, 306 P.3d 610 (2013). … that "somebody walked in on somebody on top of my sister in one of the bedrooms." 8 However, unlike the other pieces of evidence that the state mustered, the transcript's reliability did not depend on memory and thus was immune

Fox v. Collins

238 Or. App. 240 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 2010

Second, according to defendants, “[t]he record establishes as a matter of law that defendant did not waive the statute of limitations. … Such a waiver “must be plain and unequivocal, either in its terms or by conduct, clearly indicating an intention to renounce a known privilege or power.” Id.

State ex rel. Reed v. Smith

15 Or. 98 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1887

The latter might very properly claim and establish that it would recognize no one as a stockholder until, a transfer of the stock was made upon its books. … A person may be qualified to be a director whose vote cannot be received at the election.