Case law

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.

Kay v. Ruby

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 6, 2023

Defendants move for summary judgment on grounds that plaintiff cannot establish deliberate indifference to his health and, alternatively, that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … At most, plaintiff complains of negligence, and it is well established that negligence cannot support a § 1983 claim. Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057.

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.

Birth v. Crabtree

996 F. Supp. 1014 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 10, 1998

Crabtree, 109 F.3d 566, 568 (9th Cir.1997), the court stated the BOP has broad discretion to determine eligibility, but is not immune to judicial review. Id. … In this case, the INS detainer lodged against Petitioner clearly has a deleterious effect on the Petitioner.

Jones v. Board of Parole

350 Or. App. 432 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 10, 2026

Petitioner contends that the board violated his due process right to notice and the opportunity for a fair hearing by not clearly advising him about his pre-hearing decisions and the hearing process that it intended to use … Similar to the federal equal protection provision, Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution prohib- its laws “granting to any citizen or class of citizens priv- ileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms,

Brown v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Division

219 Or. App. 607 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 7, 2008

Petitioner was clearly afforded an opportunity to communicate with counsel or others, and she in fact did so. 4 She does not argue that she should have been provided with additional time to communicate; she argues only that … Citizenship; privileges and immunities; due process; equal protection.

State v. Tucker

109 Or. App. 519 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 13, 1991

She argues that the testimony did not qualify under either of the two theories for its reception: as a declaration against penal interest or as a statement of a co-conspirator. We need address only the first theory. … A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.”

American Federation of Teachers-Oregon v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac

208 Or. App. 350 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 4, 2006

That is, the court found that without the forgeries, neither measure would have qualified for the ballot. … Consistently with the foregoing, there are some circumstances in which ORS 162.085(1) would clearly apply.

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).

State v. Bracken

341 Or. App. 318 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 18, 2025

Thus, defendant argues that his actions qualified as passive resistance and that the court erred in denying his MJOA. … 162.315(2)(c) (“ ‘Resists’ means the use or threatened use of violence, phys- ical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person and includes, but is not lim- ited to, behavior clearly

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.

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

Delima v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

616 F. Supp. 2d 1055 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 23, 2008

Defendant contends that plaintiff cannot establish that she was qualified to work in an ASM position. … The record also establishes that plaintiff had not completed the DST training required to qualify for an ASM position, and that plaintiff had not obtained the customer and merchandising experience required to qualify for

Matthew v. Juras

16 Or. App. 524 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 4, 1974

He asserts that the evidence establishes he is a disabled person within the statute. … A similar problem concerning who might, within constitutional standards, be qualified in an administrative proceeeding to serve as a hearing officer was considered in Morrissey v.

Chance v. Weston

96 Or. 390 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 25, 1920

There are also limited fees; (1) qualified or base fees; (2) fees conditional at the common law.” Fee simple is defined in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary as: “An estate of inheritance. … Had the legislature intended to change the long-established rule entitling a husband to curtesy out of the wife’s equitable estate of inheritance, it would have been very easy to have expressed it thus.

Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Land Management

987 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 12, 2013

Thus, the EAJA establishes a two-part test for determining whether an award of attorney fees is appropriate. … Additionally, plaintiffs’ declarations establish that qualified attorneys such as Frost, whose distinctive skills and knowledge were needed to prevail, were unavailable at the statutory EAJA rate.

Multnomah County v. Talbot

56 Or. App. 235 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 8, 1982

He also has the duty, if he has reason to believe that property ceases to qualify as historic property, to request that the preservation officer determine if the property continues to qualify; when so requested, the preservation … Clearly, the assessor is not a disinterested bystander. He has a statutorily imposed involvement under the legislative scheme.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Farris

229 Or. 209 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1961

The record indicates clearly that both the trial committee and the Board of Governors at all times followed the procedure demanded by Section 25. This assignment of error is therefore dismissed. … The evidence indicates clearly that when the defendant gave Mr. Bristol the aforementioned sum of $20 he had no thought of being reimbursed by the Hjulstads.

Fincham v. Wendt

59 Or. App. 416 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 29, 1982

That result is clearly wrong. A mechanical reading of the statute must therefore fail. … Waibel, 276 Or 189 , 554 P2d 492 (1976), claimant does not qualify as an employe. [Footnote omitted.]

State v. Green

128 Or. 49 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1928

The procedure to be followed by trial courts when confessions are offered in evidence was clearly and accurately stated by Mr. Justice Harris in a concurring opinion in State v. … It is a sacred principle that no one shall be compelled, or be induced under promise of immunity from punishment, to accuse himself.