Case law

Stettler v. O'Hara

69 Or. 519 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1914

constitutional, and, when this depends on the existence or nonexistence of some fact, or state of facts, the determination thereof is primarily for the legislature, and the courts will acquiesce in its decision, unless the error clearly … There is only one federal inhibition urged against this statute, namely: *531 “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States, nor shall any state

Cederberg v. Legacy Health

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 28, 2020

Accordingly, Defendants have established the “good faith” element for the statutory immunity defense. B. … Because Defendants have established that their evaluation and discharge of Tylka were made in good faith, on probable cause, and without malice, they are statutorily immune from liability.

Babbitt v. Pacco Investors Corp.

246 Or. 261 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1967

It is sufficient to say of this contention that it was clearly and irrevocably waived by counsel representing both defendants at the trial. … Another assignment of error urged by both defendants is so clearly lacking in merit that it does not call for discussion.

Williams v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 2023

“Governmental action is rationally related to a legitimate goal unless the action is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” … Plaintiffs dispute this conclusion and assert that their previous COVID-19 infections confer a natural immunity superior to the immunity conferred by the vaccine.

Wilson v. WALLUSKI WESTERN LTD.

226 Or. App. 155 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 25, 2009

Wideman, 203 Or App 359, 364 , 124 P3d 1271 (2005) (preservation rules are meant to ensure “that the position of a party is presented clearly to the trial court and that parties are not taken by surprise, misled, or denied … At trial, the parties stipulated to the following facts: “(1) at all material times since his accident on April 6th, 2004, Plaintiff Boyd Wilson was and is a qualified individual with a disability under [the] Americans with

Gottfried

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 2, 2026

Palmer for initiating and pursuing a dependency action in court, he is entitled to absolute immunity. See Coverdell v. … Any amended complaint filed by Plaintiff must clearly identify (1) the parties; (2) the claims; and (3) sufficient facts to support each claim.

Barcik v. Kubiaczyk

321 Or. 174 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 25, 1995

This court concluded that the statutory immunity provision in ORS *183 30.270 does not limit liability under section 1983. Id. at 273-85 . … Nominal damages may be awarded, in a proper case, only to a party who has established a claim.

Moss v. Peoples California Hydro-Electric Corp.

134 Or. 227 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1930

The value thus established was not a personal one but a commercial one recognized by the market. … In an action of this character, where treble damages lend to the proceeding a punitive character, the above evidence was clearly prejudicial to the defendant’s case.

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.

McCann v. Oregon Railway & Navigation Co.

13 Or. 455 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 26, 1886

I do not think that the city of Astoria had any authority over the subject beyond that of establishing the wharf line. … The appellant’s counsel concedes that, though he maintains that he had no other right than to build out from the shore; but chapter 63, Miscellaneous Laws, clearly authorizes shore-owners in incorporated towns to construct

Stovall v. State of Oregon

324 Or. 92 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1996

This is an untenable solution and one that clearly would not have been intended by the legislature. … As a matter of law, local defendants have failed to establish the second element.

Kidder v. Olsen

176 Or. App. 457 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 12, 2001

Gartin, in response, admitted each of those allegations but qualified her admission by arguing that plaintiff was estopped from relying on her failure to close or provide tender. … Thus, Measure 50 established a valuation scheme under which a particular property’s tax-assessed value might not mirror its fair market value.

Meyer v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 29, 2022

Legal Standards Congress established that when a complaint is filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the … The United States and its agencies have sovereign immunity in federal court unless that immunity is waived. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980).

In re Riggs

105 Or. 531 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1922

Thereupon, on the final hearing, the court established and defined the boundaries of the proposed district, designated the name of the district, established a convenient number of election precincts and defined the boundaries … This affidavit clearly establishes that A. Whisnant was both “publisher” and “printer” of “The Bend Press.” We not only have the proof of publication of a lawful notice, but that proof is made by a competent witness.

Schoene v. Rasmussen

District Court, D. Oregon · May 14, 2024

In the alternative, they argue that Defendant Frasier is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 13-14. i. … Defendant Frasier also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. County Def. Mot. 13-14.

Kirwan v. Dept. of Rev.

21 Or. Tax 424 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 15, 2014

Allowable deductions from taxable income are “a matter of legislative grace and * * * the burden of clearly showing the right to the claimed deduction is on the taxpayer.” Interstate Transit Lines v. … Whether taxpayers’ expenses qualify as ordinary and necessary is essen- tially a question of fact and “it must appear that there is a proximate—rather than merely a remote or incidental— relationship between the claimed expenses

State v. Cunningham

179 Or. App. 359 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 6, 2002

The record further establishes that the victim made the first telephone call to her mother at 7:10 p.m., and that, at that time, she was still highly upset by defendant’s call. … Clearly, it does apply to appellate review of the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal (or directed verdict in civil actions).

Gaston v. Stott

5 Or. 48 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1873

The proviso (in the second section) does not limit or qualify the power of the Legislature over them and their proceeds in any manner. … itself to decide; and it is but respectful to that body to suppose that it was simply the intention of that act to give purchasers their patents, so that the claimant under the State might institute proceedings in equity to establish

Hurst v. First Student, Inc.

181 F. Supp. 3d 827 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 16, 2016

First Student reviews the applications and offers qualified applicants an interview. Criddle •Dep. 10:18-22. … These factors clearly apply only to employees, not trainees.”); Helde v.

Graham v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 4, 2021

“Governmental action is rationally related to a legitimate goal unless the action is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” … The Complaint does not allege the necessary facts to establish liability for either Gaston or Donaldson under § 1983.