Case law

Jeffords

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 5, 2026

On July 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief and argued that she need not establish that she was a qualified individual to prevail on her ADA retaliation claim, taking a position contrary to her position at the … Now that the jury has found that Plaintiff was not a qualified individual, Plaintiff takes the clearly inconsistent position that she need not show that she was a qualified individual to prevail on her ADA retaliation claim

State Ex Rel. Hupp Motor Car Corp. v. Kanzler

129 Or. 85 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1929

of some portion of its business, or have an agency established therein for the purpose of soliciting some portion of its business to be transacted in this state or elsewhere, or have property in this state; and in the last … on business within the State of Oregon; that it does not now possess, nor has it ever possessed, property within this state; finally, that it has never qualified to do business in Oregon, nor has it maintained at any time

State v. Perez-Salas

312 Or. App. 693 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 30, 2021

physical possessions, or any other items that the defendant pos- sessed that were in [B’s] room, and that he gained access to her room, allegedly, by forcing the door open, breaking the doorjamb, would indicate clearly … The state responds, as it did at trial, that B’s bed- room was a “rented room,” qualifying as a separate unit or building under the burglary statutes, see ORS 164.205(1), and, thus, a dwelling, see ORS 164.205(2).3 The state

State v. Hoover

219 Or. 288 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1959

This, in fact, is the rule established by decisions of this court. State v. McDaniel, 115 Or 187 , 231 P 965 , 237 P 373 (1925), controls the disposition of this appeal. … But he overlooks the important qualifying language “which may subject him to enhanced penalties.” The defendant is not subjected to any “enhanced” penalty by a conviction under ORS 166.270.

Lauer v. Grant County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Dec 1, 2020

Accepting as true Plaintiff’s allegation that the subject property is held by land patent title, that does not qualify the subject property for exemption. … Oregon’s power to impose property taxes is well-established.

AAA Oregon/Idaho Auto Source, LLC v. State

363 Or. 411 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 2, 2018

The fact that a reference to taxes levied on, or measured by, sales is clearly included in paragraph (1)(a) and clearly omitted from paragraph (1)(b) indicates that the voters would have understood and intended the constitutional … Moneys in the fund are to be used for rebates to purchasers of qualifying vehicles. Id. § 152(6); see id. §§ 149, 150.

Chance v. Graham

76 Or. 199 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1915

All the testimony of those who know anything about the subject, or were in a position to know, shows clearly that the grantor bestowed the frazzle' of his fortune upon the defendants Young without reservation, and that, too … The law requires clear, explicit and satisfactory testimony to establish a trust contrary to a *211 deed absolute in terms. This doctrine is established by the following authorities in this state: Barger v.

Campbell v. KNIFE RIVER CORP.-NORTHWEST

783 F. Supp. 2d 1137 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 8, 2011

Defendant does not challenge that plaintiff belongs to a protected class and was qualified for his position. … Facts regarding the agent’s duties are clearly relevant to the analysis. See, e.g., Sana v.

Century Indemnity Co. v. Marine Group, LLC

848 F. Supp. 2d 1238 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 27, 2012

TPPs point out that the 104(e) letters clearly threaten substantial fines, and the Batson letters clearly threaten enforcement for failure to participate. … Paul argues, it cannot be required to defend what would qualify as a “claim” under its policy, regardless of whether it would qualify as a “suit” under the OECAA.

Serenity Lane, Inc. v. Lane County Assessor

21 Or. Tax 229 · Oregon Tax Court · Aug 30, 2013

on the same basis as it took on other patients weighs against it on the second of the “gift or giving” factors, Serenity’s undertaking to provide outpatient treatment for indigent patients through its “New Hope” program clearly … Serenity’s expert sought to establish that Serenity offers detox at below-market rates by comparing the cost of detox for patients of Serenity to the rates other hospitals in this state charge for “uncomplicated detox.”

Bartz v. State of Oregon

314 Or. 353 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1992

In this instance, the words of the statute do not clearly express the legislature’s intention. … The Constitution of the United States requires the states to provide persons convicted of crimes “some clearly defined method by which they may raise claims of denial of federal rights.” Young v.

Barnhart v. Fastax Inc.

127 F. Supp. 3d 1098 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 26, 2015

Plaintiff contends that under contract law, K1 established a compensation agreement on August 30, 2012. This Court looks to principles of contract. … Instead, K2 clearly outlined a compensation system that recognized differing levels of PEP completion.

Womack v. Consolidated Timber Co.

43 F. Supp. 625 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 1, 1941

Clearly, on the other hand, the last ruling is a permissible one under the language of the statute. … Defendant, Consolidated Timber Company, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws ■ of the State of Michigan, qualified to do business in the State of Oregon.

State v. Wallace

321 Or. App. 704 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 14, 2022

J clearly had the ability to refuse to do things that defendant asked her to do. … Rather, the state must establish “the complainant’s requisite, particularized inability to under- stand or consent to sexual relations.”

State v. Donovan

243 Or. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 25, 2011

Statutes having the same ‘characteristics’ have the same ‘trait[s], qualifies], or properties]’; they need not be identical in every detail. … That is sufficient, under our prior interpretations of ORS 813.215(1) and ORS 813.010(5), to establish that VTL section 1192 is a statutory counterpart to ORS 813.010.

Beach v. Holland

172 Or. 396 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1943

The evidence clearly shows, and counsel for the defendant concede in their brief, that the action of the deceased in causing her bank account to be changed to a joint account in the names of herself and the plaintiff, was … The claim of immunity from the tax was rejected for several reasons, among others that in Oregon an estate by the entirety in personal property cannot be created.

Middleton v. Reyes

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 29, 2025

Secondarily, defendants argue that they are each entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Because the record does not show that defendants deprived plaintiff of a constitutional right, the Court does not reach the remainder of the qualified immunity analysis. See Orn v.

State v. Jeffery

329 Or. App. 380 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 6, 2023

Jeffery of a child, and there are laws establishing that children should be treated more leniently than adults. Id. at 623-26. … Clearly, the court considered that evidence because defendant relied on it at the sentencing hearing.

Barton v. City of Portland

242 F. Supp. 2d 893 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 27, 2002

In addition, defendants Katz and Kroeker argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The mitigation hearing clearly satisfied all of these requirements. The record reveals that Barton had ample notice of the charges against him.

Central Lincoln People's Utility District v. State Tax Commission

221 Or. 398 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1960

The reference to shares, etc., qualifies the word “companies” and not “corporations.” … The intention to tax a municipality is not to be inferred, but must be clearly manifested by an affirmative legislative declaration. Portland v. Welch et al., supra; State v. Preston, supra.