Case law

State v. Campbell

299 Or. 633 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1985

Thus the testimony was pot admissible unless it qualified as one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule set forth in OEC 803 or 804. … The declaration clearly falls within an ancient and firmly rooted hearsay exception. 10 Although much has been written about whether out-of-court statements by children concerning sexual misconduct are inherently reliable

Zmation, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Mar 17, 2022

It claimed six qualified projects in 2016 and eight qualified projects in 2017. (Id.) … But those emails and notes do not clearly demonstrate a systematic method of trial and error capable of evaluating more than one alternative, rather than simple trial and error.

City of Portland v. Homeaway.com, Inc.

191 F. Supp. 3d 1157 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 7, 2016

One who owns or owns and manages a business or other such establishment.”). HomeAway contends these definitions demonstrate ownership is necessary for proprietorship. … HomeAway argues it does not qualify as a Booking Agent, but even if it did qualify, these specific Ordinance provisions cited by the City do not actually impose any requirements or duties on Booking Agents.

State v. Crook County

242 Or. App. 580 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 11, 2011

As the parties have correctly noted, this case does not involve a land use decision as contemplated in ORS 197.090(2)(a)(A). 12 See ORS 195.305(7) (“A decision by a public entity that an owner qualifies for just compensation … Accordingly, DLCD’s Measure 37 waiver — one of the waivers that is at the heart of the vesting proceeding in this case — was clearly a matter within its statutory authority.

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Development Commission

292 Or. 735 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1982

In any event, the goals are clearly rules within the meaning of ORS 183.310(7): “ ‘Rule’ means any agency directive, standard, regulation or statement of general applicability that implements, interprets or prescribes law … We read the reference to qualify only the determination of urban population growth requirements.

Pinnell v. Belleque

638 F. Supp. 2d 1231 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 26, 2009

” establishes Cornell alone committed the acts that resulted in Ruffner’s death, and contradicts Petitioner’s suggestion that his proffered “new evidence” establishes Ruffner’s death was an accident: 8. … Stewart, the court found the physical evidence of guilt was not strong and the prosecution relied principally on the testimony of Robert Dunbar given in exchange for immunity. 132 F.3d 463 , 466 (9th Cir.1997).

Pfizer Inc. v. Oregon Department of Justice

254 Or. App. 144 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 19, 2012

that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury. … Thus, the Gibney declaration was legally sufficient to establish the availability of the “trade secrets” exemption.

Sheppard v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co.

375 Or. 262 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 14, 2026

And even when using the word “permanent” in those qualified ways, the court did not seem to suggest that only vehicles made avail- able to that extent would be subject to the exclusion. … Thus, the court was describing polar opposites, with the exclusion clearly encompassing one pole and just as clearly not encompassing the other.

United Engine Parts, Inc. v. Ried

283 Or. 421 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1978

Defendant’s counterclaim was clearly one of a legal rather than equitable nature. Ordinarily, in such a case we are bound by ORS 17.435 and Art. … Exhibit 10, on the other hand, in the amount of $124.11 and dated January 17,1976, clearly does not cover anything connected with the oil cooler assembly.

Rathfon v. Payette-Oregon Slope Irr. Dist

76 Or. 606 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1915

The authority exercised by the defendant is based upon the will of the people in establishing a district susceptible of irrigation from a common source. … Being thus qualified to enter into it voluntarily, he is subject to. the majority action of other landholders similarly situated.

State v. Mellenberger

163 Or. 233 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1939

We are clearly satisfied that the doctrine of particeps criminis has no place in the administration of the criminal law. … We are clearly satisfied that the statute is not susceptible to the interpretation championed by the defendants. But State v.

McConnaughy v. Pennoyer

43 F. 196 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Jul 28, 1890

Justice Miller, after stating that, “whenever it can be clearly seen that the state is an indispensable party to enable the court, according to the rules which govern its procedure, to grant the relief sought, it will refuse … He is bound to establish it. The state is a political corporate body, can act only through agents, and can command only by laws.

Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 24, 2020

Plaintiffs in this case represent certain “food and drink establishments” in Oregon. ECF 1 at ¶ 16. … commerce are clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.”

Harley-Davidson Motorsports, Inc. v. Markley

279 Or. 361 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1977

The Court rejected the "public interest” criterion and chose to determine the applicability of the qualified privilege established by New York Times on the basis of the public or private status of the plaintiff. … This is clearly a First Amendment application of the rule. Neither Times ’nor Gertz ’protections apply to the case before us.

Warren v. Yamhill County

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 16, 2024

Wellpath’s Alleged Policies As a pretrial detainee, Rader had a clearly established, constitutional right to adequate medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment. … A Policy of Failing to Provide Access to Qualified Health Providers Plaintiff’s third alleged policy of inaction is of failing to provide access to qualified medical and mental health providers, including by failing

Martino v. Carey

563 F. Supp. 984 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 1, 1983

If a challenged condition does not deprive inmates of one of the basic Eighth Amendment requirements, it is immune from Eighth Amendment attack. … Clearly Spain v. Procunier, supra, remains the law of this Circuit on this issue.

Tigard Electric, Inc. v. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n

790 F. Supp. 1498 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 19, 1992

These cases focus on the scope of the labor antitrust exemption from the Sherman Act, a question not raised by the present motion. 2 Though the Supreme Court has concluded that the participation of unions would not immunize … It argues that the challenged statements were clearly privileged, and that they accurately characterized or quoted from the complaint.

Clark v. Wolf

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 3, 2022

immunity. … Accordingly, the Court declines to reach Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments.

State v. J. C. N.-V.

359 Or. 559 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 26, 2016

Thus, under the 1985 statute, youths who were 14 at the time of an act remained immune from criminal *576 prosecution. … However, focusing on the qualifying word “sufficient,” and the object of the understanding, the “nature and quality” of the conduct, the state contends that the statute requires no more than an adult-like mental grasp of

In Re Ridgley

81 B.R. 65 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Dec 4, 1987

This is clearly not correct because, as has been pointed out, the definition of “transfer” is broad enough to include the fixing of a lien. … Although interest is not specifically included in the language of § 507(a)(7) which delineates those taxes which qualify for priority treatment, that section does refer to “allowed unsecured claims”.