Case law

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

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

Traver v. Naylor

126 Or. 193 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1928

Dennis testified that decedent said: “If ever I recover I will marry her bnt I am not qualified to marry her. As far as the finances, she is provided for; she will get all if I die.” F. P. … That plaintiff fully performed the contract upon her part is clearly established by the evidence. She remained with him during all of the time he was in the hospital and assisted in nursing and caring for him.

Emery

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 20, 2026

To sustain a claim under the ADA and RA, Plaintiff must establish that: (1) he “is an individual with a disability;” (2) he “is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the … Even if employment in the TRCI laundry qualifies as a stand-alone benefit, service, or program, Plaintiff cannot show that he was “otherwise qualified” for a laundry position.

State v. Guerrero

214 Or. App. 14 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 11, 2007

Atkinson, 298 Or 1 , 688 P2d 832 (1984), Oregon law has clearly distinguished between an inventory and a search. For that reason, we generally do not use the phrase “inventory search.” As we explained in State v. … Dinsmore, 182 Or App 505, 518-19 , 49 P3d 830 (2002). 2 We hasten to add that we do not assume that a Panasonic light scope necessarily would qualify as a ‘Valuable.”

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.

State v. Moore

334 Or. 328 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 11, 2002

At the pretrial hearing on his motion in limine, and again at trial, defendant objected to admission of Olea’s hearsay statements, arguing that (1) at least some of the statements did not qualify for admission under OEC 803 … First, in conformity with the Framers’ preference for face-to-face accusation, the Sixth Amendment establishes a rule of necessity.

Killam v. Tenney

229 Or. 134 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1961

It would be unreasonable to say that anything in the concluding paragraph of the letter of February twenty-fifth was intended to qualify the exercise of the option so clearly expressed in the first part of the letter or could … There are no words of ultimatum in the letter, and it is arguable that it was not written with the intention of qualifying the acceptance in any manner.

State Ex Rel. Jackson Creek Sand Co. v. Jackson County

147 Or. App. 577 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 30, 1997

At least part of the purpose of the Plan was to qualify for financial assistance in conducting forest practices on the property. … During the life of the mine, however, the primary focus will clearly be on gravel extraction and processing. The operation will not simply be auxiliary to the ultimate reforestation.

Allstate Insurance v. Morgan

123 F. Supp. 3d 1266 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 18, 2015

The Larson clause did not clearly establish the parents were in privity with their son and, therefore, issue preclusion did not apply. ' In the present case, the Criminal Acts Exclusion Clause bars coverage for “bodily injury … Allstate also argues that the Joint Obligations, Clause excludes coverage for Debby. and that the conduct allegéd in the Nicholson Complaint does not qualify as an occurrence under the Policy.

Shipman v. Portland Const. Co.

64 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1913

the defendants Keeney, Gill, and Martin, it appears that at the first meeing of the board of directors of which they were members a resolution was adopted by that body to the effect that $5,000 be paid to each director qualifying … It is well settled that for actual services of real value a corporation may issue in payment therefor its fully paid-up capital stock, but, in order to support such a transaction, it must clearly appear that the transaction

State v. Duggan

215 Or. 151 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1958

Each fact necessary to establish guilt must be proved to the satisfaction of the jury and beyond reasonable doubt. … The jury was properly and clearly instructed by the judge as to the way they should treat the circumstantial evidence, and there is sufficient evidence to support their verdict.

In Re Rice

224 B.R. 464 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Aug 18, 1998

The exemptions under .subsections (B) and (C) of O.R.S. 23.160(1)© clearly provide a debtor with an exemption only in a “payment” of a stated amount. … The proponent of the doctrine has the burden of establishing that materials fall within its purview. Sandberg v. Virginia Bankshares, Inc., 979 F.2d 332, 335 (4th Cir.1992).

Hardtla v. City of Cannon Beach

183 Or. App. 219 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 7, 2002

Plaintiff asserts that, whichever of these two provisions applies, each clearly and objectively prohibited the city from approving defendants’ proposed structure, which was 912 square feet. … A land use regulation is an ordinance establishing standards for implementing a comprehensive plan. ORS 197.015(11).

Esparza v. Bobs

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 2025

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff cannot sustain his claims and that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … (setting forth procedures of the BOP administrative remedy program); id. § 115.51(a)-(d) (establishing channels to report sexual abuse or harassment of AICs).

Schoenheit/Unger v. Rosenblum

356 Or. 783 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2015

The agency shall be considered established if the majority of votes favor the establishment. … (b) Does not impair the rights and immunities provided under ORS 30.930 to 30. 947. SECTION 10.

Durbin v. Oregon Railroad

17 Or. 5 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1888

This is claimed upon the ground that, from the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, it clearly appeared that it was the negligence of the plaintiff which occasioned the collision and caused her injury. … Upon this state of facts, what doubtful or qualifying circumstances does the conduct of the plaintiff present which excuses her from the plain consequences of her negligent acts?

Collins v. Farmers Insurance

312 Or. 337 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1991

It is important to analyze why imposing this duty to read and understand the policy is neither clearly required nor clearly rejected by past decisions of this court. … Until recently, the effect of the family-household exclusion was fully consistent with the public policies underlying interspousal immunity and parental immunity.

In Re Sugar Pine Ranch

100 B.R. 28 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Apr 28, 1989

Clearly, this act is designed to protect workers while excluding certain types of agricultural laborers from its coverage. … Willis live on the farm and have an established way of life in raising crops and livestock.

Harper v. Federal Land Bank of Spokane

692 F. Supp. 1244 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 27, 1988

In that Title, Congress established broad rights for borrowers and mandatory duties for lenders. … “The test, rather, is whether an Act of Congress, clearly creating a federal right or remedy enforceable in a federal court of equity, could be given its intended scope only by the stay of a state court proceeding.”