Case law

Ivanov v. Farmers Insurance

344 Or. 421 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 8, 2008

Contrary to the determinations below that plaintiffs had the initial burden of establishing medical necessity, the nature of plaintiffs' *422 claims instead required Farmers to establish that the denials it had issued were … the trial court decided on summary judgment was, as plaintiffs themselves put it (and as the trial court repeated in its opinion), "whether Farmers was required to have support from a medical examination conducted by a qualified

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.

Schaaf v. Eugene School District No. 4J

19 Or. App. 838 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 23, 1974

School districts shall make every effort to transfer teachers of courses scheduled for discontinuance to other positions for which they are qualified. … Clearly the instructors would be entitled to a hearing under the express terms of the Fair Dismissal Law as amended in 1973.

State v. Dameron

316 Or. 448 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 28, 1993

“Clearly they can if they do so reasonably, quietly, and peaceably.” Id. … “(b) An initiative law may be proposed only by a petition signed by a number of qualified voters equal to six percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the election at which a Governor was

Storla v. Spokane, Portland & Seattle Transportation Co.

136 Or. 315 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1930

Clearly the object of the present act is to relieve the host from liability for ordinary negligence. … Clearly this instruction should have been omitted unless some special circumstance required these precautionary remarks.

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 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

Lavitch v. Smith

224 Or. 498 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1960

The adoption of either test alone will exclude from the class of invitees some entrants who would qualify as invitees under the other test. … Clearly, one in the defendant’s position who welcomes an individual into her place of business and then, finding him seated in her office, acquiesces in his presence there and proceeds to do business with him makes him an

IBEW Local 89 v. Wallan

326 Or. App. 796 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2023

harm can qualify as a “personal stake” or as having a legal effect on the individual. … Petitioners do not have standing to bring this action based on the alleged institutional injuries.8 We thus turn to the few allegations in the affida- vits that are not clearly institutional injuries.

In Re Frank Victor Patterson for Admission to the Bar

210 Or. 495 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1957

From established policy it tolerates no deviation and no debate. … As we have already indicated, the proof establishes that this is one of the ultimate aims of the Party.

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Campbell

178 Or. App. 271 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 5, 2001

The juvenile court undoubtedly qualifies as a sending agency under that description. … We note that there is no dispute in this case that the type of guardianship established by the court pursuant to ORS 419B.370 constitutes “foster care” for purposes of Article 111(a) of the compact. ORS 417.200.

Department of Human Services v. E. L. G.

270 Or. App. 308 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 8, 2015

In response, DHS argues that the juvenile court’s assertion of jurisdiction was not clearly erroneous because there was some evidence in the record to support the juvenile court’s implicit factual finding that C’s welfare … However, even if the asserted error qualifies as “plain error,” we must determine whether to exercise our discretion to reach the error and correct it. Ailes v.

Clark v. Phelps

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 23, 2023

As demonstrated above, the Amended Complaint clearly alleges that in issuing the Certificates of Compliance, Phelps and Curtis acted within the scope of their employment of Defendant Canopy dba MCM. … Even if those documents do not establish LSF9’s authority to enforce the loan, and there is no indication in any document this Court has reviewed remotely challenges that chain of title, the documents establish LSF9 and

Hammer v. Campbell Gas Burner Co.

74 Or. 126 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1914

Cum ningham, was duly and regularly elected trustee of said bankrupts, and thereafter duly qualified as such trustee in the manner provided by law, and ever since said date has been and now is the duly acting and qualified … Professor Pomeroy, in his work on Code Remedies (4 ed.), Section 637, says in part: “By the decisions which have been reviewed in the foregoing paragraphs, certain specific rules are clearly established for all the states

Brown v. SAIF Corp.

361 Or. 241 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 2017

Ordinarily, we think of medical evidence as establishing medical conditions that result from events that occur, not as establishing a particu- lar sequence of events that happened on the job. … Finally, OTLA argues that two other statutes use the words “injury” and “condition” clearly to mean different things.

Recall Bennett Committee v. Bennett

196 Or. 299 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1952

They would have been deprived of their clear right to choose between other candidates who were qualified. … We hold that the defendant Bennett is not qualified to become a candidate for election to the unexpired term of the office from which he was recalled.

Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc.

265 F. Supp. 3d 1196 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 5, 2017

The Supreme Court found that the Reviser’s Note did not clearly express any substantive change to § 1400(b), therefore none would be presumed and § 1391(c)’s amendment to purportedly apply to “all cases” did not include patent … June 27, 2017) (“TC Heartland does not qualify as an intervening change in law.”); Tinnus Enters., LLC v. Telebrands Corp., No. 6:15-CV-00551-RC, 2017 WL 3404795 , at *2 (E.D. Tex.

Elwert v. Elwert

196 Or. 256 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1952

Residence is not enough, except as it is co-joined with intent, which determines whether its character is permanent or temporary; and clearly a mere intent cannot create a domicile * * The dominant factor in the change of … It is a fair inference that this situation alone may have caused him many anxious moments from whence arose the realization that marriage to his companion on the Pacific tour might afford immunity to a criminal prosecution

Bobosky v. Adidas AG

843 F. Supp. 2d 1134 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 29, 2011

Rather, only use of a mark to identify the goods as coming from a certain source and distinguish it from other sources qualifies as trademark use. … It is well-established that even use of a mark as ornamentation on apparel manufactured by others qualifies as trademark use as long as the mark also serves the trademark purpose of identifying the source of the product.

Garcia Garfias v. United States

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 6, 2025

The moving party must establish no genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … If the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must establish a genuine dispute by pointing to evidence outside the pleadings. Id. at 324.