Case law

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.

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

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.

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.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Gustafson

305 Or. 655 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 17, 1988

The rules of judicial conduct anticipated in subsection (1) (e) were previously established by this court in the Code of Judicial Conduct. … It is not sufficient to show that he reasonably should have known; *659 disregard of a known rule or criterion must be clearly and convincingly proved.

Sanderson v. Maass

687 F. Supp. 520 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 9, 1988

McCoy recited the above assets and stated that if the information was true, Sanderson did not qualify for appointed counsel. The court asked Sanderson, “Do you want to be heard on that matter?” … Sanderson also established that he advised the court that he did not have enough experience to proceed without an attorney. The record does not establish that he waived his right to counsel “with eyes open.”

Strong

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 14, 2026

To qualify for in forma pauperis status, a civil litigant must demonstrate that the litigant is unable to pay court fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); O’Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617. … A Court must also assess whether the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Picker v. Vollenhover

206 Or. 45 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1955

Halvey, 330 US 610 , 91 L ed 1133, to the effect that “as to either prospective or retroactive enforcement of such obligations, this state ‘has at least as much leeway to disregard the judgment, to qualify it, or to depart … The practice in this state clearly establishes the procedure to be followed in these cases.

Reiger v. St. Charles Health System, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 13, 2025

She argues that the legislature’s use of the word “qualifies” “confirms that it intended a patient’s entitlement to 100% bill forgiveness be established by a hospital’s screening.” Id. at 12. … Charles understood Plaintiff did not “qualify” and transferred the debt on that basis. Why then Ray Klein would or should have known that Plaintiff qualified and was immune from interest is unclear.

DeCicco v. Uniroyal, Inc.

293 F. Supp. 1190 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 24, 1968

Clearly, he would not take a chance on a 25% increase in purchases if he believed that he was then purchasing a defective product. … The record clearly shows that the plaintiff’s operations were unprofitable during the years 1958, 59, 60, 61 and following years.

O'Hara v. Parker

27 Or. 156 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1895

brought merely to establish a legal title, or recover possession alone.” … The court there say: “The subject matter of the bill, therefore, was clearly within the equity jurisdiction of the court.

Kupillas v. Sage and Social LLC

337 Or. App. 67 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 2024

Dwellings or structures used by the public do not qualify as agricultural buildings. ORS 455.315(2)(a)(B). … Dept. of Rev., 353 Or 616, 620, 302 P3d 804 (2013) (construing courts “resolve any ambiguity by applying well-established canons of statutory construction”).

H. D. v. Stenbeck

322 Or. App. 551 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 26, 2022

He raises two assignments of error, contending that the trial court erred in grounding the SPO on speech-based contacts without determining whether they met the standard established in State v. … Nonprecedential Memo Op: 322 Or App 551 (2022) 555 but that “there’s so many e-mails that are clearly unwanted contact.”

White v. Hood River County Assessor

16 Or. Tax 309 · Oregon Tax Court · Jan 18, 2001

Defendant argues, however, that the activities are not sufficient to qualify the land for farm use special assessment. … At the time of the subject property’s disqualification, Plaintiffs were preparing the land for future farm use and clearly qualified for the deferral.

Portland Metro. Ass'n of Realtors v. City of Portland

292 Or. App. 163 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 31, 2018

filed in the [Multnomah County Circuit Court] challenging Ordinance 187770 [and] [t]hat proceeding, on [petitioners'] motion, has been stayed pending the outcome of this appeal." *784 Moreover, although petitioners do not clearly … from Ordinance 187150, nor do petitioners proffer any exception under ORS 14.175, respondent attempts to demonstrate anyway that this action is moot, that no collateral consequences exist, and that this action does not qualify

Diamond v. City of Sandy

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 10, 2025

Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 616-617 (2015), which states that “[e]ven if an officer acts contrary to her training . . . that does not itself negate qualified immunity where it would otherwise be warranted” and thus, “a plaintiff … The Court notes that this passage discusses the weight of an expert opinion in a qualified immunity analysis, not the admissibility of that evidence in the first place.

Jane Doe 130 v. Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon

717 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 4, 2010

J.V.H. and Jane is clearly not a fit matter for judicial notice. … J.V.H., it would clearly have constituted actionable negligence had the archdioeesan defendants permitted Fr.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Piper

271 Or. 726 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1975

That amendment to Article VII, § 8, of the Oregon Constitution was implemented by the adoption by the 1967 Oregon Legislature of ORS 1.410 ff, providing for the establishment of the Commission on Judicial Fitness (Oregon … It was contended by Jenkins by writ of prohibition in that case that the Oregon State Bar, by seeking his disbarment as a lawyer, sought also to dis *740 qualify him as a judge by reason of the fact that in order to qualify

Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen

315 Or. 500 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1993

its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations. * * * “Here the requirement that appellants permit appellees to exercise state-protected rights of free expression and petition on shopping center property clearly … Oregon, perhaps more than Michigan, has a long-established tradition of respect for the initiative process.

Port of Umatilla v. RICHMOND

212 Or. 596 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1958

. *601 The Port of Umatilla was established as a district in the year 1940. … The highly-qualified witness Pollett testified that his concern could probably occupy 50 acres and 2,000 feet of waterfront and that its competitor would use a like amount.