Case law

Green v. Douglas County

245 Or. App. 430 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 8, 2011

Those contentions largely related to the application of ORS 215.448(1), which provides that “[t]he governing body of a county or its designate may allow, subject to the approval of the governing body or its designate, the establishment … That statute requires LUBA to affirm a land use decision, notwithstanding insufficient findings, if “the parties identify relevant evidence in the record which clearly supports the decision.”

State v. Garlinghouse

323 Or. App. 640 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 11, 2023

There are also situations where a jury clearly is equally qualified without help from opinion testimony such as offered here. … It is the area between the clearly qualified and the clearly unqualified where the trial judge should be granted a cer- tain latitude of decision in excluding or receiving expert opinion testimony.”

Stellar J Corp. v. Smith & Loveless, Inc.

749 F. Supp. 2d 1137 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 5, 2010

Perhaps Smith could establish that, when it inserted the notation “N/A” on page 7 of the form that it faxed to Stellar, it was, reasonably, unaware the it needed an Oregon contractor’s license. … Smith clearly qualifies as a contractor under the terms of Or.

United States v. One Parcel of Real Property

780 F. Supp. 715 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 3, 1991

In Roviaro , the Supreme Court stated that the qualified privilege to withhold the identity of an informant “must depend upon the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration ... the possible significance … Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish probable cause in a forfeiture proceeding.

BAYRIDGE ASSO. LTD. PART. v. Dept. of Rev.

321 Or. 21 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1995

A zoning ordinance is clearly a "governmental restriction as to use * * * under applicable law[.]" … When the landowner's property is downzoned he qualifies for a property tax credit."

Jordan v. Motor Vehicles Division

308 Or. 433 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1989

Because, as I would hold, the exemption requires that public disclosure itself rather than use of the information must qualify as an invasion of privacy, this second test also describes categories of information rather than … Her affidavit filed in the trial court sufficiently established that disclosure to the requester would more likely than not unreasonably invade her privacy because providing the information would allow Jordan to harry her

McCoy v. SC Tiger Manor, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 4, 2021

And while the Federal judicial officers named here were not named there, any claims against them for any actions taken during Plaintiff’s federal action in Louisiana are clearly barred by absolute judicial immunity. … To establish personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show that a defendant had “minimum contacts” with Oregon, such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction “does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial

Farmers Insurance Co. v. Aranda

279 Or. App. 36 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 2016

Employer, in its third assignment of error, also posits that (1) claimant failed to establish that he clearly requested formal written acceptance of his cervical radiculopathy condition, as required by ORS 656.267(1) and … That rule does not qualify the obligation to identify issues as dependent on which party has the burden of production.

Dept. of Human Services v. J. A. G.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 25, 2023

Although the statute does not impose a “requirement of absolute need,” to qualify as a “needed” treatment, the treatment “must be connected more than tenuously to the jurisdictional bases” the treatment is Cite as 328 Or … Although we are mindful of the press of court business, we encourage courts, when issuing orders under ORS 419B.387, to clearly explain why, based on the evidence, the ordered treatment is needed by a parent to

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Gatti

330 Or. 517 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 17, 2000

When the litigation is over, the courts will clearly have identified who has been ethical and who has not. … raised the immunity issue in these proceedings.”

State v. Gates

104 Or. 112 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1922

Commission may Establish Deadlines. … Obviously the word “stocked” did not *126 relate back to and qualify the word “salmon.” The words are “any salmon,” and they include all salmon.

Kahn v. Pony Express Courier Corp.

173 Or. App. 127 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 14, 2001

statutes “designate certain information as confidential * * * without stating that such information is immune from judicially compelled disclosure” (emphasis added)). … Moreover, even assuming that the privilege is qualified by the exceptions provided in ORS 419A.255(2) and (3), by their terms, none of those exceptions was applicable here.

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Mathis

21 Or. App. 740 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 23, 1975

This psychiatric therapy was given by an experienced doctor who appears to be eminently qualified in his field. The immediate and actual cause of the last runaway is not apparent. … A longer period for any re-adjustment as well as a subsequent period of continued supervision seems clearly indicated. The public’s interest cannot be otherwise reasonably recognized.

Arms v. SAIF Corp.

268 Or. App. 761 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 4, 2015

claimant conceded that the C6-7 degeneration was not itself a compensable consequential condition but maintained that the proposed surgery was compensable as a medical service under ORS 656.225. 1 SAIF responded that “this is clearly … SAIF notes that claimant’s C6-7 condition was not diagnosed or treated before the 2003 work injury, and it asserts that nothing in the record establishes that the condition was arthritic.

American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 429 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 26, 1963

It is not qualified to do business in Oregon, maintains no office here, has no employees here, solicits no business here, and has no direct contractual arrangements with any railroad which operates in Oregon. … Tax Com., 229 Or 627, 632 , 368 P2d 337 (1962), and its statement of the due process criteria appears firmly established.

Pacific Western Co. v. Lincoln County

166 Or. App. 484 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 12, 2000

The statute REQUIRES that the property right be recorded, and the property right that is recorded be one that establishes access. This requirement is more than mere ownership. … Conversely, petitioners’ construction answers the question clearly and grammatically: Consent is required when vacation “would deprive an owner” of access necessary for the exercise of a recorded property right.

In Re Potts

301 Or. 57 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1986

In attorney discipline cases, the Bar bears the burden of establishing each element of an ethics violation by clear and convincing evidence. … He relied on a single magazine article and his own intuition to establish his fee.

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas County

309 Or. App. 499 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 3, 2021

LUBA affirmed a hearings officer’s determinations that the applicant would qualify as the “operator” of the proposed home occupation and that no more than five persons would be employed on the site of the home occu- pation … and more specifically the ambi- guity in ORS 215.448(1)(b) is limited to determining how to count persons who are employed part-time on the site, since any employee who is employed full-time on the site would clearly

Bingham v. Employment Department

163 Or. App. 381 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 1999

Claimant’s position, as we understand it, is that the record establishes that Roscoe merely “requested” the written statement and that such a request comported with the well-established practice of not requiring written statements … That entitlement may, in appropriate cases, be limited or qualified by established policy, pattern, or practice.

State v. Sunbeam Rebekah Lodge No. 180

169 Or. 253 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 1942

The last will of James Eddie, executed June 12, 1931, was admitted to probate August 10, 1940; and the defendant Swayze, named in the will as executor thereof, was appointed as such executor and duly qualified. '■ The first … What was intended by the inexpertly written sections 2, 3 and 4, above quoted, is clearly shown by the statement of objects and purposes of Eebekah lodges set forth on page 7 of the Eebekah Lodge Eitual handbook, thus: “The