Case law

Farms v. Washington County Assessor, Tc-Md 100443d (or.tax 10-13-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Oct 13, 2011

The equipment used in such harvesting qualifies for the exemption. … However, ORS 307.394 does not include a *Page 14 requirement that farm machinery and equipment used in harvesting be directly related or reasonably necessary to the harvesting process. 6 Case law clearly establishes that

Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc.

153 Or. App. 442 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 22, 1998

However, that mental state, even if it had been conclusively established, is not a defense to a false arrest action.” Stranahan v. … “An abuse of discretion occurs when a court exercises its discretion to an end not justified by and clearly against the evidence and reason.” Lutz v. State, 130 Or App 278, 285 , 881 P2d 171 (1994).

Stumpf v. Continental Casualty Co.

102 Or. App. 302 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 27, 1990

The court concluded that “the defendant * * * could not secure immunity from liability for the negligence of the physicians it might employ to perform the contract on its behalf by the plea *308 that it exercised due care … Those allegations do not, as a matter of law, constitute wilful non-cooperation, which is required to establish the defense. See Rosalez v. Unigard Insurance Co., 283 Or 63, 67 , 581 P2d 945 (1978).

City of Woodburn v. Domogalla

238 Or. 401 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1964

Certainly in the present case the circuit court was equally qualified to determine whether defendant had exceeded the bounds of his authority. 5. … In those situations where the legislature has granted specific power to act I am convinced that it was clearly intended that the tax court would have every power that formerly was exercised by the circuit courts.

Helms Deep, LLC v. Dept. of Rev.

25 Or. Tax 210 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 13, 2023

The court had no occasion to decide whether a particular structure qualified as a dwelling. … The only reference to an ear- lier date is a shot discussing the establishment of a founda- tion in 2017, the relevance of which is not apparent from the admissible evidence. C.

State v. Villeda

Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2024

Given that context, the statement that there would be “more reason” to find prejudicial error under circumstances not presented in that case is clearly dicta and, as our subsequent cases (discussed next) demonstrate, we have … The reason, we explained, is that the party’s “right to have his case tried before a fair, impartial and qualified jury remains unimpaired[.]”

State v. Jim

13 Or. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 2, 1973

An accusation of theft by extortion must be supported by proof establishing theft by extortion.” The effect of the trial court’s ruling on the demurrers at bar is to negate the second sentence of subsection (2) above. … An indictment in the language of the statute is generally sufficient with certain qualifying exceptions. State v. Smith, supra; State v. Anderson, supra.

Schaefer v. Marion County

318 Or. App. 617 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 30, 2022

Thus, although the bill did not refer to airport boundaries, it effectively created airport boundaries by defining which land qualified as “airports.” … Those provisions clearly identify the act that increases the size of a public use airport like Aurora State. The airport boundary establishes the size of the airport.

West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims

Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 8, 2016

Oregon Auto’s duty to defend was owed to anyone who qualified as an insured under the terms of the policy. … The allegations in the complaint, however, did not clearly indicate whether the injury would be covered.

Smith v. Smith

205 Or. 286 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1955

The arguments are adequately reviewed by Professor Prosser whose modern viewpoint is, as usual, qualified by a mellow scholarship. … It has also been suggested that the right of action in a wife should be qualified by applying the doctrine of assumption of risk in various cases arising within the purview of the marital relation.

State v. Bliss

363 Or. 426 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 9, 2018

See, e.g. , Kurokawa-Lasciak , 351 Or. at 192 , 263 P.3d 336 ("[T]o qualify for the **437 automobile exception, the vehicle that the police search must be mobile at the time that the police encounter it in connection with … has suggested that any aspect of the automobile exception turns on that phrase, the court has not elaborated on its use of the phrase, the court has used the phrase interchangeably with the term "lawfully stopped" (which clearly

State v. MOLITOR ET UX

205 Or. 698 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1955

“THE COURT: I don’t know that the witness is qualified to answer that question, Mr. Johns. “MR. … Clearly, such evidence was competent, relevant, and material in establishing the state’s theory.

State v. Gauthier

113 Or. 297 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1925

Tested by these long-established rules, the indictment in the present case is legally sufficient to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against him, and to inform the court of the statute upon which the charge … The evidence attempted to be elicited was clearly in regard to a self-serving declaration and incompetent. Defendant complains as to the qualifications of some of the jurors.

Garcia-Solis v. Farmers Ins. Co. (In re Comp. of Garcia-Solis)

365 Or. 26 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 31, 2019

appliances, arising out of and in the course of employment requiring medical services or resulting in disability or death; an injury is accidental if the result is an accident, whether or not due to accidental means, if it is established … See ORS 656.267(1) (must be "clearly request[ed]," with certain forms specifically not allowed); ORS 656.262(6)(d) (worker must give notice of any "incorrectly omitted" conditions in writing).

Chernaik v. Kitzhaber

263 Or. App. 463 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 2014

In some cases in which “the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action was clearly based on a determination of the merits of the claim,” we have “review [ed] that determination as a matter of law and then remand [ed] for … Defendants also argued to the trial court that they were protected against plaintiffs’ claim by principles of sovereign immunity. Defendants do not pursue that argument on appeal, and we do not address it further.

Oregon Growers' Co-operative Ass'n v. Lentz

107 Or. 561 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1923

the defendant, nor is it violative, as is also argued by the defendant, of Section 20, Article I of the Constitution, which provides that “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities … and its enforcement hy mandatory injunction restraining the defendant from selling the products contracted for, to anyone except the plaintiff, will work no injustice or hardship upon the defendant, and as plaintiff is clearly

State v. Villeda

Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2024

Given that context, the statement that there would be “more reason” to find prejudicial error under circumstances not presented in that case is clearly dicta and, as our subsequent cases (discussed next) demonstrate, we have … The reason, we explained, is that the party’s “right to have his case tried before a fair, impartial and qualified jury remains unimpaired[.]”

Turnidge

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 29, 2026

Almost 20 years later, the Ninth Circuit clarified that “Keenan did not clearly establish that constant illumination violates the Eighth Amendment when done for a legitimate penological purpose.” Chappell v. … In order to prove such a claim, Plaintiff must establish that he: (1) is a disabled person; (2) is otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of a public service, program or activity; and that 5 - ORDER

Department of Human Services v. S. M. S.

279 Or. App. 364 · Benton County Circuit Court, Oregon · Jul 7, 2016

Sobotka, and a qualified mental health counselor, Shively. Sobotka diagnosed mother with schizophrenia, unspecified type. … Mother claims that, although schizophrenia is a serious condition, the testimony presented by medical professionals at the hearing clearly indicated that she was stable and serious about getting the necessary support to parent

Daly v. Wolfard Bros., Inc.

204 Or. 241 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1955

The evidence clearly established the fact that there was to be no charge for the "tuning up" of the motor. Such work come within the warranty. … It is argued by defendant that its refusal to deliver possession of the car to plaintiff was a limited or qualified refusal.