Case law

O.M. v. National Women's Soccer League, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · May 24, 2021

To obtain a mandatory injunction, a plaintiff must “establish that the law and facts clearly favor her position, not simply that she is likely to succeed.” Id. (emphasis in original). … Plaintiff is injured by being excluded from the market, competition in the market is injured by the exclusion of otherwise qualified players, and the NWSL and its members have pooled their market power to “in effect, establish

Hyde v. Albert E. Peirce & Co.

147 Or. 5 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1934

In other words, these parties argue that the bond required by section 25-1309, Oregon Code 1930, is a qualifying bond and not an indemnity bond. … It is said that by a qualifying bond is meant one, which evidences that the applicant for a broker’s permit, who tenders such a bond, is of financial and moral worth.

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 .... ”).

Sizemore v. Keisling

164 Or. App. 80 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 3, 1999

On July 13, defendant publicly announced his determination that the proposed measure had received a sufficient *83 number of voter signatures to qualify for the November ballot. … The decision whether to submit portions of an initiative measure for separate vote is clearly such a function.

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.

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. Williams

326 Or. App. 64 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 17, 2023

The Court has not clearly articulated what federal law, exactly, is the source of the territorial limits on the jurisdiction of state courts. … ORS 131.325 required the state to establish for ORS 131.325 to apply and permit venue to be established in Washington County.”

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.

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.

Cascadia Wildlands v. Scott Timber Co.

190 F. Supp. 3d 1024 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 19, 2016

Both parties’ occupancy conclusions rest on plausible scientific backed by qualified experts. Because serious questions exist as to the merits of this case, this first factor favors a preliminary injunction. *1035 B. … Here plaintiffs assert the “unauthorized taking of marbled murrelets ... is clearly irreparable.” Pis.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 19.

State v. Camarena

344 Or. 28 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 25, 2008

As we read Davis , that statement was intended to emphasize that statements made in situations not amounting to “interrogation” may, depending on the circumstances, nevertheless qualify as testimonial, so that their admission … First, although the relevant portions of complainant’s 9-1-1 telephone call clearly describe an attack that had passed, the call occurred within one minute of the attack, or just after defendant had left the couple’s residence

Jory v. Martin

153 Or. 278 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1936

Manifestly, no other persons at that time were better qualified to express an opinion as to the meaning of the constitution, or could speak more authoritatively, than these men and, therefore, their opinions upon the very … three great departments of the state and such construction has been acquiesced in by the people for that whole period, the court should not apply a different construction to that provision unless its unconstitutionality is established

Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance

169 Or. App. 405 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2000

set of criteria established by the director by rule.” … This clearly was not contemplated by the legislature as evidenced by a clear reading of the statute.

Smith v. Hurlburt

108 Or. 690 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1923

The County Court is established by virtue of the Constitution and is invested with the jurisdiction conferred by that document, and such as may be prescribed by law. … The intent to levy the tax is clearly shown by the record. No technical defects should invalidate the levy.

Andrade-Tafolla v. United States

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 2022

The work-product doctrine “is not a privilege but a qualified immunity protecting from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in anticipation of litigation.” Admiral Ins. … “The burden of establishing application of the deliberative process privilege is on the party asserting it.” Thomas v. Cate, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1012, 1019 (E.D. Cal. 2010).

State v. Ortiz

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 5, 2023

Vage, 278 Or App 771, 777, 379 P3d 645, rev den, 360 Or 697 (2016) (“It is well established that an error does not qualify as plain error if the record contains a competing inference that the party may have had a strate- … That testimony was sufficient to qualify Miguel to offer 156 State v.

Rossa

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 11, 2026

O’Connor, 846 F.2d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming denial of qualified immunity in § 1983 case where patient at the State hospital was killed by another patient when a question of fact existed as to whether defendants … But as discussed above, Plaintiff fails to identify any unconstitutional policy or decision that clearly establishes the fault and causation behind the incident between Philbee and Bergeron. C.

Estate of Evans v. Dept. of Rev.

368 Or. 430 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 29, 2021

The Internal Revenue Code provides an exception to that rule if the property is “Qualified Terminable Interest Property” (QTIP), as defined at 26 USC § 2056(b)(7). … The modified will that controlled the trust clearly contemplated that Evans would receive distributions from the trust assets as “necessary for [her] health, educa- tion, maintenance or support in [her] accustomed manner

Klamath County School District v. American Surety Co.

129 Or. 248 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1929

Van Biper was the duly elected, qualified acting treasurer of Klamath County, Oregon, from January 3, 1921, to January 5, 1925. … The mandate of the Constitution for the establishment of a uniform and general system of common schools necessarily implies, or embraces, the plenary power to establish the unit of that system, such as a school district.

State v. Farber

59 Or. App. 725 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 20, 1982

He contends that no conspiracy was established to qualify the hearsay statements under the “co-conspirator rule” and that, alternatively, even if there was a conspiracy established, the admission of the inculpatory statements … It is seldom possible to establish a specific understanding by direct agreement between the parties to effect or accomplish an unlawful purpose.