Case law

Dayton v. Department of Revenue

5 Or. Tax 56 · Oregon Tax Court · Jun 2, 1972

Subsection (4) of ORS 321.618 clearly shows that the legislature contemplated *66 the possibility of a part of the land being denied the designation as forest land. ③ Further points were raised by witnesses of the intervenor … The actual tax involved was $1.73 per acre, an amount insufficient to establish tax hardship, and irrelevant in any event.

Shumway v. Oregon State Peniten., Corr. Div.

294 Or. 462 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1983

Defendant also contends that the Disciplinary Committee failed to follow another rule which requires it to conduct an investigation upon an inmate's request. [2] Respondent argues that defendant did not clearly make such … , a fortiori, qualify in a probable cause setting. * * *" (Footnote omitted.) [3] The current rule revises a rule previously promulgated in 1973, 1976 and 1979.

Matter of Field

281 Or. 623 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1978

In all fairness to Judge Field, we find that some of the charges are inconsequential or the result of oversight, and others contain criticisms that could be addressed to any trial judge. 5 However, the evidence clearly shows … There were other cases where it appeared obvious that the defendant qualified for court-appointed counsel.

Burnette v. Wahl

284 Or. 705 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1978

The doctrine of intrafamily tort immunity has been previously abandoned by this court with respect to intentional torts resulting in physical injuries. … If the legislature either provides for a civil remedy or clearly indicates that it means other provisions for enforcement to be complete and exclusive, there is nothing for a court to decide.

Pranger v. Oregon State University

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 4, 2023

Although OSU is an arm of the state entitled to sovereign immunity, the Court is not foreclosed from granting relief in this case because Defendant has waived sovereign immunity. … court; and (2) Defendant waived sovereign immunity when it removed the case.

Lewis v. Oregon Beauty Supply Co.

77 Or. App. 663 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 12, 1986

“If an employer directly discharges an at-will employee in such a manner as to make the discharge [wrongful] it would defy both reason and fairness to immunize him from liability simply because he has been clever enough to … Jurisdictions that recognize the concept of constructive discharge have established different elements that the plaintiff must prove.

Schoren v. Schoren

110 Or. 272 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1924

The above rule prevails in all other jurisdictions, except perhaps in a few where it is qualified by the statutory requirement that all stipulations shall be in writing. In Twitchell v. Risley, supra, Mr. … The record clearly establishes the contention of plaintiff that the decree from which defendant has attempted to appeal is a consent decree, from which no appeal can be taken.

State v. Phillips

317 Or. App. 169 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 26, 2022

Oneill, 256 Or App 537, 543-44, 303 P3d 944, rev den, 354 Or 342 (2013), that description risks miscommunicating the nature of defendant’s evidentiary burden as established by the legislature. … For example, the state points to ORS 686.440, which provides civil immunity for a veterinarian who decides to euthanize “a seriously injured or seriously ill animal,” but only if the veterinarian “does not know who owns the

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. State Board of Agriculture

198 Or. 43 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1953

They are paid the prices established by the defendant; subject, of course, to readjustment if the period’s operations result in a surplus which must be sold at a low price. … Accordingly, unless a doctrine or principle has become so well established that it may fairly be considered to have become a rule of property, * * * the courts will not adhere to it, although established by previous decisions

Johnson v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 18, 2021

that they qualified for an exemption.”). … As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Privilege or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment secures only a very narrow class of rights, the most well- established of which is the right to travel. Saenz v.

McLaughlin v. Wilson

292 Or. App. 101 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 31, 2018

It is worth noting, however, that some legislators and proponents of HB 2352 were careful to qualify their descriptions of the bill as nonsubstantive. … . *** So, you know, I'd hate to have the impression that there is absolutely nothing in here that constitutes a change in any substance, but clearly the effort here was to keep it as non-substantive as possible ***."); Tape

Wetherell v. Douglas County

204 Or. App. 732 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 22, 2006

It is difficult for me to see how the legislature and LCDC could have worded general statutes and regulations to more clearly show that they would disapprove of the use contemplated here. … practices and other forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources.” 4 With respect to Friends’ Goal 4-based challenge, LUBA determined that the county had misconstrued its comprehensive plan as establishing

Salgado v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · Jul 24, 2012

Plaintiffs acknowledge that they may not have “followed the letter of the law,” but believe the donations themselves qualify as charitable contributions and the value can be easily established. … Dept. of Rev., TC-MD 050026C, 2005 WL 3047248 (2005) (denying a deduction for the donation of a manufactured home where there was clearly no dispute about the existence of the donation, but no appraisal to substantiate

Lohr

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 11, 2026

In order to arise under federal law, “[a] right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” … Because this Court clearly lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, this action is REMANDED to state court. Fed. R. Civ.

State v. Johns

301 Or. 535 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1986

That concept does not qualify prior crime evidence for admission. … A simple, unremarkable single instance of prior conduct probably will not qualify, but a complex act requiring several steps, particularly premeditated, may well qualify.

Blank v. US Bank

252 Or. App. 553 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 26, 2012

Green later signed a concurrence letter, in which he agreed with employer’s legal counsel that claimant’s “medical history and the diagnosis of [CSS] clearly raises the possibility that idiopathic factors caused [claimant … Claimant contends that the board erred both legally and factually by relying on Green’s concurrence letter and deposition testimony to deny compensability because, according to claimant, that evidence established that “[Green

Jones v. Hoss

132 Or. 175 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1929

Words which have no well established technical or legal signification are to be given their plain, natural and ordinary meaning. A constitution is dependent upon ratification by the people. … The court clearly distinguished between personal and legislative expenses.

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 prehearing 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 prohibits laws “granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall

State v. Gaines

346 Or. 160 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 30, 2009

So understood, mere inaction, without more, would not seem to qualify. … So that, although, to establish a case of resistance, it must appear that the party was personally present and personally resisting, liability to the charge of obstructing may be established by showing that the party has

Climate Change Truth, Inc. v. Bailey

District Court, D. Oregon · May 5, 2022

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 Court determines that” the action is: (1) “frivolous or malicious”; ( … To qualify for judicial immunity, a judge must have performed “judicial acts” within the scope of his or her jurisdiction. Stump, 435 U.S. at 356-57.