Case law

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.

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.

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.

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

Mendoza v. Bell

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 28, 2021

Defendants also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion. … “[F]or a person acting under color of state law to be liable under section 1 Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, arguing Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendants Turner

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.

Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. United States Forest Service

546 F. Supp. 2d 1088 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 3, 2008

These are clearly different uses in potential frequency, scope, and impact. … Sirrah clearly has no express easement recorded in the chain of title to the Becker property.

Apeldyn Corp. v. Eidos, LLC

943 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 8, 2013

It does not appear from the text and context of the Preservation Clause that every right under the Patent Agreement necessarily would qualify as an accrued right. … Because the Gross Revenues clause is silent as to the effect of expiration or termination, and the Patent Agreement clearly establishes that expiration and termination are contemplated outcomes, the Gross Revenues clause

Sites Freightlines, Inc. v. United States

158 F. Supp. 909 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 24, 1958

They contend that applicant does not qualify as a common carrier by motor vehicle under the act and hence, that it may not be granted a certificate. … “provides that an applicant must establish that it is fit, willing and able to perform the proposed service.” . See Herrin Transportation Co. v.

Allision v. Dolich

148 F. Supp. 3d 1142 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 7, 2015

Hearsay is admissible only if it qualifies as an exception to the general hearsay rule. … Even if, Josephson did not adequately identify the payroll registers as admissible business records, this flaw may clearly be cured at trial. See Fraser v.

Alexanderson v. Board of Commissioners

289 Or. 427 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1980

orchard and was qualified for property tax assessment limited to farm use. … The reason why that statute is not "conclusive" is that it is clearly not applicable.

In Re Buelow's Estate

177 Or. 218 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1945

The executors failed to qualify as such, and an administrator with the will annexed was appointed. … It should be possible for the executor to cease to hold given property as such and to begin his administration of it as trust property, if the intent to bring about this effect is clearly indicated in any way." 3 Bogert,

Alvarez v. University of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 25, 2020

Defendants further argue that plaintiff’s claims are similarly barred by qualified immunity because plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts to show that his rights were violated. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established

Department of Revenue v. Hoyt

8 Or. Tax 367 · Oregon Tax Court · May 20, 1980

Unless the Government seeks testimony that will subject its giver to criminal liability, the constitutional right to remain silent absent immunity does not arise. … United States, 340 US 367 , ante, 344, 71 S Ct 438 , 19 ALR2d 378 (1951), and to require him to answer if 'it clearly appears to the comb that he is mistaken.’ Temple v. Commonwealth, 75 Va 892, 899 (1881).

Guard Publishing Co. v. Lane County School District No. 4J

310 Or. 32 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 10, 1990

ORS 192.501(6) Clearly, there is no legislative policy against exempting some public records that describe a class of persons. … The agency's action in this case clearly complied with the requirements of the statute.

Hotchkins v. Fleet Delivery Service

25 F. Supp. 2d 1141 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 14, 1998

The Garrett court held that a plaintiff “may establish [a] prima facie case [of race discrimination] by demonstrating: (1) that she belongs to a protected class; (2) she was discharged from a job for which she was qualified … In his Complaint, Hotchkins clearly spells out two claims for relief: violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Complaint, pp. 1, 3.

McDuffy, Edwards & Associates, Inc. v. Peripheral Systems, Inc.

93 Or. App. 226 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 5, 1988

of the invoice, McDuffy-Edwards warrants placements to the extent if, for any reason, the employee leaves the position secured through McDuffy-Edwards within 60 days of the starting date, McDuffy-Edwards will provide a qualified … and unambiguously establish the intent to apply the fee limitations to employer-paid fees, as well.

Horner's Market v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District

2 Or. App. 288 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 26, 1970

. “* * * [I]f one principle clearly emerges from the numerous decisions of this Court dealing with taxation it is that the Due Process Clause affords no immunity against mere inequalities in tax burdens, nor does it afford … In Hadley, supra, the Court limited its decision to a situation where each qualified voter is given the same power in an election “open to all.”

State v. Vogh

179 Or. App. 585 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 2002

But that same right is implicated by any number of other objections that do not qualify as “structural error.” … Thus, in cases of actual misconduct, in which a juror engages in deliberations that in some way violates his or her oath, “the verdict will stand unless the evidence clearly establishes that the misconduct constitutes a serious

Morrow v. Warner Valley Stock Co.

56 Or. 312 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1909

The principal effort of counsel for plaintiffs, in the trial of the case in the court below, appears to have been *322 directed mainly to establish that the land in question was not swamp and overflowed land, and was not … The record shows clearly that plaintiff Morrow resided continuously on his homestead from the time of his entry on January 15, 1889, until he made his final proof on June 3, 1895, a period of more than six years, during which