Case law

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 v. Abrams

11 Or. 169 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1883

The objection is clearly untenable. There is still another objection based upon the alleged defectiveness of the record. … The material ground of objection is, that the identity of the hat was not established so as to make the testimony admissible.

Sunshine Dairy v. Peterson

183 Or. 305 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1948

Immediately following the four classes we find the only clause which mentions establishment of differentials in prices. … The words “said various services” clearly refer to the four classes, a, b, c, and d enumerated in the same sentence.

State v. Moore

229 Or. App. 255 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 1, 2009

Here, even more clearly, defendant was not free to leave while he was handcuffed and in the back of the police car while he was being questioned. … Thus, under McGinnis , defendant’s testimony at trial cannot be used to establish “harmless error” with regard to the illegally obtained evidence.

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.

Lobue

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 8, 2026

he is entitled to qualified immunity regarding plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim. … May 25, 2022) (“The court has discretion to decide which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis,” 1) whether a constitutional violation occurred, and 2) whether the right was clearly established, “should be

State v. Sassarini

300 Or. App. 106 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 2019

Those determinations about the parties’ pre- trial communications are not clearly against the evidence and reason. Cf. Forsi v. … Sassarini copies and qualify as “duplicates” of what appeared on the memory card, and we do not understand defendant to con- tend otherwise on appeal.

Shepherd v. McGee

986 F. Supp. 2d 1211 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 7, 2013

First, both Wall’s and Raymer’s Declarations establish actual, material, and substantial disruption to their working relationships with Plaintiff. … Given my determination on the merits, I do not consider Defendant’s alternative qualified immunity argument.

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

Bonnichsen v. United States

217 F. Supp. 2d 1116 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 30, 2002

Narratives can provide information regarding the history of Indian cultures, and Congress clearly intended that, where appropriate, this evidence should be considered in establishing cultural affiliation. 59 See, 25 USC § … Plaintiffs are clearly the kind of “qualified professionals” referenced in the regulations. 73 The record establishes that Plaintiffs are eminent scientists in the field of “First American Studies” who have written hundreds

Madden v. SAIF Corp.

64 Or. App. 820 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 5, 1983

The administrative rules established a procedure which required that medical services be paid pending the complaint until such time as the medical director should rule that sanctions should be imposed. … The Board was clearly correct in holding that SAIF erred in refusing to pay the medical bills and in ordering SAIF to pay them.

Greene v. Homesales, Inc.

257 Or. App. 817 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 7, 2013

Plaintiff sought a declaration of his rights under the “Note and Deed of Trust material to this case” and any other agreements or contracts that defendants might rely upon, and notice as to which parties might “qualify as … “Without that being clearly revealed and declared,” plaintiff argued, “there was no default and therefore no lawful foreclosure.”

Delehant v. Board on Police Standards & Training

317 Or. 273 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1993

Although there is no specific provision in OAR 259-08-070(l)(a)(B) indicating that BPST — the promulgating agency — intended the rule to apply retroactively, the procedural history of this case clearly establishes such an … In this case, application of ORS 137.225(6)(b) to petitioner’s multiple convictions would have prevented him from qualifying for expunction of any of those convictions, had they occurred in Oregon.

Richardson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.

258 Or. 170 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1971

on acceptance, the court expressly found (at p 389) that “the very purpose of the agreement was the delivery of the seed to Eudy-Patrick for the purpose of testing,” for “unloading and testing,” and that “EudyPatrick was clearly … collection from Crone before delivery, so that in advance of payment Crone was not a party entitled to possession of the goods, whereas “in the present case Georgia-Pacific’s right to possession at the time of delivery was not qualified

Aluminum Cooking Utensil Co. v. City of North Bend

210 Or. 412 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 22, 1957

intervention to restrain the enforcement of an alleged void penal statute, on the ground that it would injuriously affect his property rights, he must allege in his complaint that the business in which he is engaged is clearly … Section 20 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Oregon provides: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, *427 upon the same terms, shall not equally

Franklin v. Northrup

107 Or. 537 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 22, 1923

In the nature of the case, the only evidence available either to corroborate or to rebut the testimony of plaintiff concerning- the value of the services rendered, consisted of the opinions of persons qualified to testify … Clearly, such opinion evidence is not within the mischief sought to be prevented by the statute.

Gregg v. Thurman

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 21, 2024

"A defendant seeking removal has the burden to establish that removal is proper and any doubt is resolved against removability." Id. … Moreover, despite the fact that Ettlin did not involve Eleventh Amendment immunity, it is well settled that such immunity does not apply to state officials sued in their personal capacity.

Harris v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 18, 2021

Moreover, Plaintiff brings suit against a number of municipal entities but makes no claim that would establish municipal liability. See Monell v. … Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 123-25 (1997) (prosecutorial immunity); Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004) judicial immunity).

Tornabene v. Northwest Permanente, P.C.

156 F. Supp. 3d 1234 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 28, 2015

Dyson concluded that “[t]here were clearly political issues going on in the Department and there were clearly issues on the perfusion team.” Id. ¶ 6. … Thus, given the “minimal” burden necessary to establish a prima facie case, Tornabene has presented sufficient facts showing that she was qualified for her position and that her performance was satisfactory at the time of

Hartman v. Young

2 L.R.A. 596 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1888

The assumption or the argument is, that the box when returned to the vault duly relocked, but not reasealed, created such an opportunity for tampering as to invite outrage with almost perfect immunity against discovery; that … But the court say: “That the provisions of this section are merely directory, and that, where it is clearly and satisfactorily proved that the ballots have been kept intact and inviolate, in the same condition as when •counted