Case law

State v. Kini

305 Or. App. 833 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 12, 2020

It described the following explanation of that limitation as “[o]ne of the most clearly expressed”: “ ‘The principle which seems fairly deducible * * * is that a record of a primary fact made by a public officer in … The April 2016 hospital records admitted in this case do not fit within those boundaries established by Copeland.

State v. Stilling

285 Or. 293 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1979

We hold, though, that the instruction given in this case did not deny defendant due process by shifting the burden of proof, since it did not explain the effect of the disputable presumption and was qualified in terms of … The factors included the other instructions given to the jury, which defined intent and provided that the state has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the overall evidence which clearly indicated that the

Peters v. Central Labor Council

179 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1946

That courts may take into consideration the purpose of the picketing is established by the great weight of authority. See eases collated in note 116 A. L. R. 501. Also see Teller on Labor Disputes, Vol. I, § 114. … That important and highly controversial question will be reserved for decision when and if it comes before us on a record where the intention of the union thus to picket is clearly manifested.

Twohy Bros. v. Ochoco Irrigation District

108 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1922

any and all actions and proceedings, suits at law or in equity, necessary or proper, in order to fully carry out the provisions of this act, or to enforce, maintain, protect or preserve, any and all rights, privileges and immunities … The court says: “We are clearly of the opinion that the position of the defendant is right.

State v. Parra-Sanchez

324 Or. App. 712 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 22, 2023

Parra-Sanchez into the definition, as has Oregon, the qualifying conduct may have been narrowed. … What happened there was even though you could clearly see the genitals of the two girls on the computer that Mr.

In re Ard

369 Or. 180 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2021

After Judge Bagley’s counsel unsuccessfully attempted to persuade respondent to dismiss, citing judi- cial immunity principles, Judge Bagley moved for dismissal, which generated additional responsive filings. … As established by ORCP 17 C, a lawyer such as respondent should not have engaged in that conduct.

Netter v. Edmunson

71 Or. 604 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1914

At the trial of the case, plaintiffs produced nine experienced hop buyers, who after qualifying as experts as to the quality of hops, testified in perfect unison of opinion that the hops grown by defendants and offered to … Clearly to grasp the nature of the objections interposed, we deem it prudent to quote certain portions of the evidence.

Level 3 Communications, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission

855 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 17, 2012

However, any call involving different rate centers, or local calling areas, qualifies as a toll call which generally results in additional charges to the calling party. (Compl. Ex. … Having concluded that the law in existence prior to the issuance of the Mandamus Order clearly establishes that VNXXrouted ISP-bound traffic was not subject to reciprocal compensation under the Act, the court will now address

Chandler v. State

230 Or. 452 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1962

That statute requires that the "facts alleged in the petition ... must be established by a preponderance *455 of competent evidence." Clearly that was not done in this case. … Kreutzer, 226 Or 158 , 359 P2d 536 , in which we held that in view of the express provisions of ORS 44.020 and 44.030, the trial court cannot refuse to permit minor children to testify if they are qualified under the statutes

Magness v. Kerr

121 Or. 373 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1927

Following the conveyance, the county established a county high school upon the property, but just before a local initiative measure to abolish the county high school was to be voted upon by the people of the county the grantors … The distinction between an estate upon condition and an estate with a limitation annexed is clearly recognized by courts and text-writers, and the difference between the two is illustrated in 2 Wash, on Beal Property (5 ed

Bondick v. Homes for Good Housing Agency

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 14, 2022

The Court observed that the original Complaint did not clearly establish federal jurisdiction, either through diversity or federal question jurisdiction. Order, at 4. … To the extent that Plaintiff is alleging First Amendment retaliation, he has failed to plead facts in support of that claim, or even to clearly establish the basic facts of his case.

State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Geist

97 Or. App. 10 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 1989

On de novo review, however, we conclude that the state established the allegations by clear and convincing evidence. First, the essence of the testimony of Dr. … Clearly, not only may we hear claims of ineffectiveness of counsel in termination cases; we have an obligation to provide a forum in which parents may vindicate fundamental constitutional rights.

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Marshall

13 Or. App. 239 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 9, 1973

It was positive and recommended the mother, the stepfather, their home and living conditions as fully qualified to have the custody of Teresa. (See Appendix.) … We think that the report of the Modesto County Welfare Department (see Appendix) clearly established that the conditions in the mother’s life and home were such that she was indeed both ready and *245 able to have Teresa

Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc. v. Roloff

291 Or. 318 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1981

The issue presented in this case is clearly one in which there is no underlying common law cause of action. … All three cases are clearly distinguishable, however.

Bibeau v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation, Inc.

980 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 28, 1997

Daniel Diiaconi (Diiaconi) argue that summary judgment should be granted because plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and they are shielded from liability by qualified immunity. … Although he did not seek medical attention, clearly he was aware of his recurring testicular pain, and groin rash, as well as his participation in, and details regarding the Experiments.

Sanford v. Elder

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 2025

Plaintiff should briefly and clearly explain who the defendants are, including an address at which the defendant can be served. … “To establish a claim for defamation, a plaintiff must show that a defendant made a defamatory statement about the plaintiff and published the statement to a third party.” Wallulis v.

Miller v. CC Meisel Co., Inc.

183 Or. App. 148 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 7, 2002

It also acknowledged that, if plaintiff had filed a Us pendens notice, “he’d have statutory — assuming it’s filed in good faith and all that, he’d have statutory immunity!.]” … The Printing Industry court interpreted those statutes as prohibiting any changes from the jury’s verdict on the amount of damages, even if the law clearly allowed additional damages.

US Bank of Portland v. Snodgrass

202 Or. 530 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 3, 1954

As early as 1853 our legislature conferred upon every person of qualified age and sound mind the right to devise and bequeath all his estate, real and personal, saving such as is specially reserved by law to the decedent’ … to a church thus established of the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience.

Boehnlein v. Ansco, Inc.

61 Or. App. 389 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 19, 1983

She will revoke her escrow instructions and immediately demand the return of all documents, and immediately attempt to sell the property to any other qualified buyer who meets her terms. … Because defendant’s brief clearly shows which “facts” came from the depositions, and because defendant made a good faith attempt to comply with the rule, we deny plaintiffs motion to strike the entire brief.

Jackson v. Nicolai-Neppach Co.

219 Or. 560 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1959

Herbert Jackson had assigned one share of his stock to his wife, Eva, in order to qualify her as a director. … The shareholder deadlock provisions of the Illinois Business Corporation Act, of the Model Business Corporation Act, and of the Oregon Business Corporation Law are clearly couched in language of permission.