Case law

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.”

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Rudie

290 Or. 471 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1981

However, we continued by noting that failure to respond to inquiries by the Bar is not itself clearly condemned by a disciplinary rule, independent of what bearing it may have on the matter under inquiry. … Maybe your medical doctor would be one that would be so qualified.

Bruntz-Ferguson v. Liberty Mutual Ins.

310 Or. App. 618 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 14, 2021

Larson explains that, with respect to risks personal to the claimant, they are “so clearly personal that, even if they take effect while the employee is on the job, they could not possibly be attributed to the employment … Citing Larson, the Supreme Court has explained what may qualify as a neutral risk: “[E]xamples of neutral risks would be an employe[e], who while working, is hit by a stray bullet, bitten by a mad dog, struck by

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Balocca

342 Or. 279 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 2007

The Bar must establish misconduct by clear and convincing evidence, which “means evidence establishing that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” In re Cohen, 316 Or 657, 659 , 853 P2d 286 (1993). … He also sought to establish child support. As to both those issues, Taylor’s financial status would have been at issue.

Montoya v. Housing Authority of Portland

192 Or. App. 408 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 10, 2004

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND, an Oregon nonprofit organization, Defendant, and Quantum Residential, Inc., dba Quantum Residential, an active Washington corporation, qualified to do business in Oregon, Appellant. 0007-07638 … The trial court denied Quantum's motion, ruling that it failed to establish sufficiently that it was entitled to relief based on its claim of excusable neglect.

Smith v. ABEL

211 Or. 571 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1957

And the experience base was hardly that of an established business. … The evidence clearly shows a dispute as to the requirements of the contract, which, in view of the ambiguities in the contract, was understandable.

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.

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).

Fidler v. Deschutes County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Sep 8, 2025

The enterprise zone exemption is authorized by ORS 285C.175 for qualified properties of qualifying business firms. … That statute clearly establishes a notice requirement and a right of appeal when a property is denied an enterprise zone exemption: “The county assessor shall notify the business firm in writing whenever

Mayor v. Dowsett

240 Or. 196 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1965

The case is, therefore, clearly distinguishable. … As the evidence clearly would not have justified their submission, there was no error in the ruling.

Beers v. Sharpe

44 Or. 386 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1904

testify in relation to their contemplated use of the water at the time they made the prior appropriation ; but they do not attempt to express Castle’s intention in respect thereto, nor do we think their testimony shows them qualified … The evidence clearly shows that that was done, and that said amount of water was so conducted each successive irrigating season whenever said stream carried that quantity of water.” 6.

Mitchell Bros. Terminal Co. v. Department of Revenue

5 Or. Tax 141 · Oregon Tax Court · Oct 30, 1972

This regulation clearly treats the assumption of liability by the taxpayer’s transferee as money received by the taxpayer, whether the property qualifies within § 1031(a) or is nonqualifying under § 1031(b) of the Int Rev … The court must follow this long-established regulation. No case has been cited authorizing any other treatment under the facts of this case.

State v. Akins

373 Or. 506 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 2025

First, the legislative history clearly shows how the term “declarant” came to be in OEC 803(18a)(b). … Second, the legislative his- tory clearly conveys the purpose of the provision.

Hoffman v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 16, 2019

“‘The 2 Defendants make additional arguments in support of their motion for summary judgment, including Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity. … Without further information, this suit does not—on its own—establish the requisite knowledge of a constitutional violation to establish supervisory liability in this case.

Northwestern Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Multnomah County

228 Or. 507 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1961

. *514 The legislature in 1939 passed ORS 373.040, which reads in full as follows: “(1) If consent is given by the governing body of any city to change any grade of any street as such grade has been established or maintained … However, we are unable to find in the Act a clear expression manifesting an intention by the legislature to waive its immunity as to interest on its debts.

State v. Vandyke

318 Or. App. 235 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 9, 2022

Snyder, 552 US at 477 (“On appeal, a trial court’s rul- ing on the issue of discriminatory intent must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous.”). … We agree with the state that, under the standard established in Batson, and given our standard of review, the trial court did not err.

Shelby v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

140 Or. App. 102 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 27, 1996

Davis concluded: “From this record as well as very clearly from the psychological testing, the single reasonable conclusion is that [petitioner] does present a severe emotional disturbance in the from of a personality disorder … Having made that concession, however, petitioner has failed to establish that all of those remedies are not available and constitutionally adequate.

Smith v. State Department of Corrections

126 Or. App. 721 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 2, 1993

The Department’s argument is that, if we were to *731 find a contempt here, any inmate who had a case pending in the courts, no matter how frivolous, would be immune from an involuntary transfer. … Clearly, Smith is required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Department violated the statute.

Cozine v. Crabtree

15 F. Supp. 2d 997 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 2, 1998

Retroactive designation also is the default method established by BOPPS 5160.03, ¶ 8(b). … Mandamus would not have been available as a remedy for Cozine, given the absence of clearly established law on this topic. Furthermore, his petition likely would have been dismissed as premature.

Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc.

332 Or. 83 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 10, 2001

exclusive source and means by which subject workers, their beneficiaries and anyone otherwise entitled to receive benefits on account of injuries or diseases arising out of and in the course of employment shall seek and qualify … Regarding the remedy clause in Article IX, section 11, he wrote: “[Article IX, section 11,] was clearly intended to insure the constant and regular administration of justice between man and man.