Case law

Smith v. Jefferson

75 Or. 179 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1915

Stated broadly, *187 a de facto officer is one who has the possession of an office and performs the duties thereof under color of right, without being actually qualified in law so to act. … The notice as supplemented by the plans and specifications was clearly sufficient, and fully complied with the rule established by prior decisions: Clinton v. Portland, 26 Or. 410 ( 38 Pac. 407 ); Rubin v.

Miller v. School District No. 1

106 Or. 108 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1922

alleges that School District No. 1, Multnomah County, Oregon, is a duly *110 organized school district of this state having more than 20,000 children of school age, and that the remaining defendants are the duly elected, qualified … Section 2 authorizes the board of directors-to subdivide the district into school election precincts, provides that schoolhouses shall be used as polling places in all cases when covenient and that no precinct established

Gordon C. York, Inc. v. Kragness (In Re Kragness)

58 B.R. 939 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Mar 26, 1986

York, Inc., is the duly appointed and qualified trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Rodney B. Kragness and Aileen R. Kragness. … Robinson Trust was established by the Last Will and Testament of J. Lawrence P. Robinson, which was admitted to probate in Hawaii on February 6, 1947. 10.

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”).

State ex rel. Department of Veterans' Affairs v. City of Salem

22 Or. App. 71 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 14, 1975

The city’s personnel labor relations director indicated quite clearly that none of the collective bargaining agreements entered into by the Salem Professional Fire Fighters Council Local 314 and the city had limited the applicability … “Q I note that counsel made a point of establishing that the 1972-73 fiscal contract with the fire department, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12, said nothing about the merit pay plan, is that correct?

Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc.

356 Or. 577 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 26, 2014

See, e.g., Bergerson, 341 Or at 412-13 (concluding that “unreasonable” and “clearly * * * excessive remedy” are delegative because the relevant statute “defines neither term, and both are open to multi- ple interpretations … Simplot Co., 340 Or at 197 (con- cluding that “reasonably necessary” is not delegative given additional, qualifying statutory wording).

State v. Lafferty

240 Or. App. 564 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 16, 2011

I know that the law provides for an increase in the maximum up to 30 years if I qualify as a dangerous offender. I understand that this will not happen in this case. … Moreover, as noted, defendant did not purport to qualify his waiver of a jury trial in any way; neither did he subsequently assert during the course of the trial that any limits or conditions applied to his waiver.

Berg v. Mengore

271 Or. 530 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1975

We did so without discussion of Miller and without considering whether that case qualified as a “rare” or “exceptional” case, within *542 the rule of Miller . … With all due respect to the majority, I submit that there was no evidence whatsoever to establish as a “fact” that when plaintiff suddenly slowed his car he “knew” at that time that defendant was there and at that time “turning

Columbia Gorge Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge

236 Or. App. 479 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 9, 2010

Petitioners challenge the commission's conclusion that the decline in the timber industry qualifies as a significant change under OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(1). … In enacting that scheme, Congress clearly envisioned that the management plan would evolve as circumstances and conditions changed.

Silbaugh v. Guardian Building & Loan Ass'n

164 Or. 286 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1940

Any attempt to do so would have been clearly unconstitutional. State ex rel. v. Sears , 29 Or. 580 , 582 , 43 P. 482 , 46 P. 785 , 54 Am. St. Rep. 808 ; Fisk v. … But notwithstanding such legislation if the corporation chooses not to take advantage of its temporary immunity to suit and particularly if it waives its immunity with the apparent consent and approval of the receiver as

Anderson v. Alexander

191 Or. 409 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1951

Ct. 154 . * * *” Ex Parte Houghton, 49 Or. 232 , 89 P. 801 , was decided before the establishment of the present statutory procedures. … The California court said: “Not only must the appointing power investigate such moral and mental qualities of a probationer, but he is required to make a determination as to ‘whether the employee is fully qualified for permanent

Davidson v. Rogers

281 Or. 219 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1978

If the courts sustain legislative negation of established judicial process by applying only the test of a conceivable rational reason for the legislation, then the way is open for the legislature to nullify any form of judicial … Should the plaintiff in the case at bar disseminate to other persons libels concerning these defendants, the immunity conferred upon them would in no wise be of avail to him.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Snyder

348 Or. 307 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 27, 2010

He advised Cohn that both the city and the county were immune from liability for his injuries. … Clearly, the accused acted knowingly.

Multnomah County v. Mehrwein

366 Or. 295 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 23, 2020

That phrase is further defined to refer to a communication that “clearly and unambiguously urges the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for nom- ination or election to public office, or the passage or defeat … of a clearly identified measure,” ORS 260.005(10)(c)(A)(i) (2015), or communications that “refer[ ] to a clearly identi- fied candidate who will appear on the ballot or to a political party,” ORS 260.005(10)(c)(B)(ii) (2015

Church v. Grant County

187 Or. App. 518 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 2003

The county reads the title of this code section as qualifying or limiting the term “authorized use.” … We note, however, that we have summarized that standard of review as requiring that a local government’s interpretation of its code is not reversible unless it is “clearly wrong.” Schwerdt v.

Johnson v. Timber Structures, Inc.

203 Or. 670 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1955

It had established no definite rule. Its decisions were to some extent in a state of confusion. … His interpretation of the statute finally became the established rule in Minnesota.

Scoville v. Hampton

217 Or. 256 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1959

In addition, other portions of the letter clearly show that plaintiffs were not in accord with other proposed terms submitted by defendants' exhibit 2. … 1/4 of Section 15; all in Township 11 South of Range 10 West of the Willamette Meridian in Lincoln County, State of Oregon. *271 for the sum of FOUR DOLLARS ($4.00) per THOUSAND FEET, based on the cruise of a competent, qualified

Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2014

currently under con- struction across the state of Oregon *  * a microwave com- *  munications network that will link Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and so on. *  * We’d like to clearly … Although nothing in the record before us establishes precisely how cable television services were delivered in Oregon in 1973, Professor Nguyen’s uncontradicted testimony establishes that they were not delivered through a

Pound v. Benton County Health Department

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 19, 2025

Plaintiff requested a medical exemption, citing his natural immunity. Id. Defendant denied that request and removed Plaintiff from the recall list. Id. … Disparate Treatment Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for disparate treatment by showing that “(1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for

Weber v. Oakridge School District 76

184 Or. App. 415 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 23, 2002

The district’s drug policy qualifies, therefore, as long as it was “promulgated pursuant to authority.” … that the risk of injury to student-athletes is sufficiently serious to qualify as “compelling” is beside the point.