Case law

Bark v. Larsen

423 F. Supp. 2d 1135 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 2006

The correspondence from these negotiations serves to further establish a specific and significant additional change in the legal relationship between the parties. … Rather, it shows that the first draft of the stipulation contained language that was unsatisfactory to plaintiffs because it did not clearly set out the scope of the withdrawal.

State v. Farber

295 Or. 199 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1983

Thus, although the issue was clearly presented, there was no clear resolution of the problem of the interaction of the admissibility of a coconspirator’s statement and the confrontation clause. 11 The Supreme Court’s most … It has been suggested that the state should immunize a coconspirator, forcing him to testify, so there is no hearsay offered and thus no conflict with the confrontation clause. See, Dutton v.

Hardegger v. Amsberry

305 Or. App. 726 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 12, 2020

Wainright, 372 US 335, 83 S Ct 792, 9 L Ed 2d 799 (1963), as the kind of rule that would qualify.” Miller v. Lampert, 340 Or 1, 9, 125 P3d 1260 (2006). … New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), would qualify. 336 Or at 381.

Equitable Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Department of Revenue

5 Or. Tax 661 · Oregon Tax Court · Nov 25, 1974

The plaintiff is qualified to do business in these states, except California where it is registered to transact business. … It is not established that the new formula is less correct or more discriminatory than the preceding formula.

Moore v. Portland Public Schools

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2023

The legislature’s express but narrow abrogation of the common-law rule of parental immunity for parents with legal custody is inconsistent with plaintiffs’ expansive view of vicarious liability for a school district. … We conclude that a plaintiff alleging discrimination because of sex pro- hibited by ORS 659A.030(1)(b) need not establish that the employer only discriminated against members of the plain- tiff’s sex in order to establish

Lewis v. Federal Aviation Administration

83 F. Supp. 3d 949 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 6, 2015

First, the court asks if “the document qualifies under the heading of ‘personnel and medical files and similar files.’ ” Id. (quoting section 552(b)(6)). … constitutes “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6); Forest Serv.

State of Oregon v. Holland

202 Or. 656 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1954

As thus qualified, it is apparent that the author refers to the type of code which is technically a revision. … The statement that the defendant purposely and maliciously killed the victim by cutting him with a knife, establishes that the act was a felony. The other contentions are frivolous. State v.

Fidanque v. State ex rel. Oregon Government Standards & Practices Commission

141 Or. App. 495 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 1996

Tidyman, 306 Or 174, 182 , 759 P2d 242 (1988): “Even * * * activities unquestionably devoted to constitutionally privileged purposes such as religion or free expression are not immune from regulations imposed for reasons … It then decided that, because the constitutional interests in free expression clearly outweigh any legislative interest in regulating campaign expenditures, the statutes violated both sections of the constitution.

Multnomah County v. Rudolph (In Re Rudolph)

166 B.R. 440 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 7, 1994

The court may not set aside findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Bankr.R. 8013. … For the foregoing reasons, the bankruptcy court properly ruled that redemption of the property qualifies as a cure under § 1322(b). IV.

Al-Khafagi v. Crites

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 17, 2024

Nielsen, 69 F.3d 1002, 1008 n.3 (9th Cir. 1995) (declining to address qualified immunity where the defendants' brief did not assert the defense); Boudjerada v. … Mar. 26, 2024) (declining to consider qualified immunity where the defendant's motion for summary judgment mentioned qualified immunity in passing but presented no specific arguments).

Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. City of Lake Oswego

360 Or. 115 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2016

Thus, although “[t]he legislature knows how to include qualifying language in a statute when it wants to do so,” PGE v. … First, the owner must establish that it was the owner of the property at the time that it was designated. Second, it must establish that the designation was “imposed” on the property by the local government.

State v. Babson

355 Or. 383 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 15, 2014

We’re not going to keep going with an offer of proof that’s going to get into things that are very, very clearly hearsay.” … Moreover, the offer of proof would have allowed defendants to demonstrate that the proffered testimony did not qualify as hearsay, as defense counsel clearly indicated was his view.

State v. 1920 Studebaker Touring Car

120 Or. 254 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1926

To allow the Legislature to except from the operation of a constitutional provision, by direct enactment, a matter clearly falling within its meaning, would sanction a fraud upon the organic law and might in the end destroy … Such a trial alone can satisfy the express provisions in the Declaration of Rights, art. 12, which declares that no subject shall be arrested, or deprived of his property, immunities or privileges, or of his life, liberty

State Ex Rel. Peterson v. Martin

180 Or. 459 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1946

It is contended that the Act does not vest the administrator with discretion whether to issue or to refuse to issue a milk-distributor's license to a properly qualified applicant. … "The law clearly contemplates the establishment of a natural marketing area. The standard would be violated, for example, if a portion of Tillamook County were included in the Salem market area."

Committee to Recall Dan Holladay v. Wiley

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 10, 2023

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s statement on the ease of obtaining signatures in a setting not affected by COVID-19 clearly contradicts Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim. … More importantly, because sovereign immunity and mootness apply, any amendment to the complaint to cure its deficiencies would be futile.

State v. Gilbert

27 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 4, 1976

Assuming that the state did prosecute the original case exclusively on a theory of theft by withholding, [8] we agree that defendant is now immune from further prosecution for the crime of illegally withholding the firearms … Thus, while ORS 164.015(1) describes `theft' by using four words, the effect is clearly to define one single concept. See *38 Cameron v.

Pascoe v. Mentor Graphics Corp.

199 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 11, 2001

Pas-coe believes he was more qualified for the TME positions than either M’Kalech or Mayer. 4. … Realty Corp., 285 F.2d 487, 491 (2nd Cir.1960) (“While the FLSA does not expressly set forth a requirement of prompt payment, such a requirement is clearly established by the authorities .... ”).

The Ullock

19 F. 207 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 7, 1884

bar-pilot under the laws of Oregon; and that the pilot from the tug who brought in the bark was a duly-qualified one under the laws of Washington territory. … But an “offer” of pilot service may also bo made by some arbitrary but established sign or demonstration, made from beyond ear-shot and addressed exclusively to the eye.

State v. Jackson

364 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 6, 2018

"There was no inducement of immunity in this case. … "It is well established that confessions are initially deemed to be involuntary and that the state has the burden to overcome that presumption by offering evidence affirmatively establishing that the confession was voluntary

Classen v. Arete NW, LLC

254 Or. App. 216 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 19, 2012

The trial court abuses its discretion if it exercises it in a manner that is unjustified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence. Quillen v. … On appeal, defendant defends that ruling on the ground that plaintiff could not plead a qualifying special relationship that would permit the recovery of economic damages in a negligence claim.