Case law

Lowe v. Keisling

130 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 1, 1994

Appling, supra, as being the more clearly reasoned and stating the correct rule, which is: Courts have jurisdiction and authority to determine whether a proposed initiative or referendum measure is one of the type authorized … “(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

Realty Group, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

299 Or. 377 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1985

It wrote that “while an obvious attempt has been made to establish salespersons as independent contractors” by an “Independent Contractor Agreement” that purported to make salespersons “solely responsible for determining … Tax Co., 247 Or 404 , 430 P2d 998 (1967), concern employment status for purposes of liability for tort damages or workers’ compensation. 5 Oregon Laws 1983, chapter 597, section 6, codified as ORS 316.209, allows qualified

Hewitt v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

294 Or. 33 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1982

Article I, section 20, states: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not belong to all citizens." … The court specifically noted that "[s]ince no party has presented the issue of extension versus nullification for review, we would be inclined to consider it only if the power to order extension were clearly beyond the constitutional

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

State v. Elkins

245 Or. 279 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1966

The piece of graph paper containing the coded message was introduced in evidence, not for the purpose of establishing his alienage and deporting him, but to establish his conspiracy to commit espionage. … Chinn, 231 Or 259 , 373 P2d 392 , since the narcotics were such as would qualify for the statement cited by the majority, that “the things seized must be things which would have been subject to the law’s demand upon a proper

In Re Idleman's Commitment

146 Or. 13 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1933

. * * * It hereby is made a matter of record that the maximum amount of $20 herein established is less than the actual total average cost per capita for care and maintenance of inmates at the Oregon state institutions for … We are clearly satisfied that the subject-matter of this act is within the scope of the legislative power.

State v. Kayfes

213 Or. App. 543 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 27, 2007

Although the court granted her immunity, K continued to refuse to testify and was held in contempt. See ORS 33.015(2); ORS 33.085. … Lastly, the evidence established that K and defendant had entered into and attempted to carry out a “suicide pact.”

Schleiss v. SAIF Corp.

250 Or. App. 458 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 13, 2012

Under ORS 656.214(2), work-disability benefits are available only to otherwise-qualified injured workers who have not been released to their regular work “by the attending physician or nurse practitioner.” … See OAR 436-030-0020(2)(a) (indicating that a closing examination is not required where the attending physician’s written statement clearly states that there is no permanent impairment or reasonable expectation of loss of

State v. Westlund

75 Or. App. 43 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 21, 1985

Although that rationale is clearly a correct one, the Supreme Court majority declined to follow it as the basis for its decision. … 1983) (application of Article I, section 9, to a person’s house does not depend on showing an expectation of privacy; the purpose of Katz is to extend protection beyond what the Fourth Amendment literally protects, not to qualify

State v. Hernandez-Esteban

374 Or. 300 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 25, 2025

Defendant established a case-specific theory of substan- tial prejudice, supported by the record. … Defendant’s argument fit comfortably into the theories that we identified in Delaney, 370 Or at 575, and clearly articulated how and why the jury would likely base its decision on either emotion or impermissible inferences

State v. Akins

373 Or. 476 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 2025

First, the legislative history clearly shows how the term “declarant” came to be in OEC 803(18a)(b). … Second, the legislative his- tory clearly conveys the purpose of the provision.

In re Complaint as to the Conduct of Trammell

301 Or. 57 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1986

In attorney discipline cases, the Bar bears the burden of establishing each element of an ethics violation by clear and convincing evidence. … He relied on a single magazine article and his own intuition to establish his fee.

Paullus v. Department of Revenue

7 Or. Tax 181 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 9, 1977

License fees for self-propelled mobile cranes are established in ORS 481.210(2)(a), and for fixed load vehicles, in ORS 481.210(5). … The legislative intent to grant an exemption for self-propelled mobile cranes, against patent opposition, is clearly illustrated by this history of revocation and renewal.

Anderson v. Smith-Powers Logging Co.

71 Or. 276 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1914

. *278 The complaint alleges, also, on or about the-day of March, 1908, the Smith-Powers Logging Company, Coos County, and the County Court of Coos County, State of Oregon, through its duly elected qualified members, against … This public use must be clearly a *288 needful one for the public, one which cannot be given up without obvious general loss and inconvenience.” In Alfred Phosphate Co. v. Duck River P. Co., 120 Tenn. 274 ( 113 S.

Manley v. Bristol

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 6, 2025

It is only injunctive relief which plaintiff seeks against defendants in their official capacities, which is clearly not precluded by the Eleventh Amendment. See Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat. … Laboratory, 131 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] suit for prospective injunctive relief provides a narrow, but well-established, exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity”) (citing Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)

Roost v. Timber Components, Inc. (In Re Tyee Timbers, Inc.)

139 B.R. 520 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Apr 14, 1992

The plaintiff is the duly qualified and acting trustee in this bankruptcy proceeding. The defendant is a Washington corporation. … CONCLUSION In this case, the debtor’s Articles of Incorporation clearly provided that the preferred stock was non-voting.

Noga v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

583 F. Supp. 2d 1245 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 9, 2008

The court noted examples where the “deposition corrections are clearly altered to allege facts sufficient to connect [a defendant] where none before existed.” Id. at 1226 n. 6. … The corrected answers were clearly in conflict with the answers originally given at the deposition, especially as *1253 to those questions to which the plaintiff had answered “I don’t know.”

City University v. Office of Educ. Policy

126 Or. App. 459 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 23, 1994

That is sufficient to establish that plaintiff is engaged in interstate commerce. See U.S. v. … OAR 583-30-015(5). [2] In addition, OAR 583-30-035(23) provides: "Notwithstanding the absence of a specific standard or prohibition in this rule, no school authorized to offer academic degrees or seeking to qualify for such

State v. Engen

164 Or. App. 591 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 1999

The court echoed, and apparently endorsed, our view that the qualifying phrase “that necessarily requires a culpable mental state” “was meant to distinguish those elements defining the substance or quality of the forbidden … First, in determining whether ORS 813.010 “clearly indicates a legislative intent to dispense with any culpable mental state requirement,” the court reviewed the history of DUII statutes in Oregon.

Elam v. Soares

282 Or. 93 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1978

that the record of the previous statements made by defendant in a telephone interview, if offered as substantive evidence to prove the truth of such statements, was hearsay evidence and therefore not admissible unless it qualified … As stated by Wigmore, however (at 559): "There is, then not only no sound reason for establishing such a penal rule, but it is itself open to abuse, and merely adds to the sportsmen’s rules elsewhere noticeable in the common-law