Case law

Sandoval v. Melvin

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 10, 2021

immunity. … Qualified Immunity Defendant also asserts plaintiff’s claim fails because he is entitled to qualified immunity.

GTE Northwest Inc. v. Public Utility Commission

130 Or. App. 637 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 19, 1994

Although the Court in Loretto never clearly defines what is a permanent physical occupation, it does give examples of what it considers to be permanent invasions and temporary invasions. … Although deprivation of the right to use and obtain a profit from property is not, in every case, independently sufficient to establish a taking, it is clearly relevant.

Bollinger Quick Repair, Inc. v. M/V Goliath

965 F. Supp. 1448 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 28, 1997

Boyden, 696 F.2d 685, 687 (9th Cir.1983) (cautioning that a vessel qualifying under 1 U.S.C. § 3 may not be a vessel qualifying under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act). … Jones Stevedoring clearly supplied necessaries which benefited the Goliath.

Konecny v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 29, 2021

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … In addition, “[s]upervisory liability exists even without overt personal participation in the offensive act if supervisory officials implement a 1 Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on

Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. Jacoby

9 F. Supp. 2d 1216 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 8, 1998

for a CE because of the presence of extraordinary circumstances; 3) the agency should prepare an EIS because the plaintiffs have clearly demonstrated that the project may have a significant impact on the environment and … “The burden of establishing substantial environmental issues is on the plaintiffs.” Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v.

Dale v. Myers

326 Or. 356 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1998

The measure requires that the ballot title for that election contain information clearly disclosing the “percentage and amount of money which would be saved by contracting out the provision of the service.” 4 Only when three … In that statutorily controlled system, one qualified contractor is selected from among a number of bidders competing with each other.

Western Generation Agency v. Department of Revenue

14 Or. Tax 141 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 13, 1997

WGA claims that it qualifies as a municipal corporation for purposes of ORS 307.090(1). … The purpose of ORS 33.710 is to provide a process to establish the validity of a local governmental organization.

First Nat. Bank v. Fire Ass'n

33 Or. 172 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1898

Chief Justice Shaw states the proposition clearly. He says : “ It is not because a man has a reputation of superior sagacity and judgment and power of reasoning that his testimony is admissible. … is quite as well established as the exception heretofore discussed.

Lewis v. Conway

District Court, D. Oregon · May 1, 2025

Finally, defendant contends she is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment illegal search claims. As noted, plaintiff seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. … Or. 2004) (Oregon Tort Claims Act “does not waive the State of Oregon’s Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court”).

Soumie v. McLean

234 Or. 485 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 22, 1963

The foregoing uncontradicted testimony clearly reveals that there was no radical change in the attitude of Emilie toward either Lillian Kurman or Dee Soumie, if there was any change at all. … To the contrary, the record clearly shows that members of the Society visited Emilie infrequently.

State v. Mankiller

344 Or. App. 327 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 22, 2025

“In particular, we look to the harm targeted by the substantive criminal offense to identify who, in the view of the legisla- ture, would qualify as a victim.” State v. … In other words, merger is presumed unless there is evidence supporting findings establishing anti-merger.

Jackson County Citizens' League v. Jackson County

171 Or. App. 149 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 22, 2000

. *152 LUBA first concluded: “[P]etitioners fail to establish why Goal 14 applies to this permit decision. … We have already concluded that Goal 14 does not require that the county *154 determine whether an application for a permit to develop a use that is authorized on EFU-zoned land qualifies as ‘urban development.’

United States v. Espinoza-Godinez

11 F. Supp. 2d 1210 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 23, 1998

If Espinoza-Godinez has presented claims that are frivolous or clearly without merit, the court should dismiss the case on the merits without appointing counsel. … Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the second motion falls within either of the two categories which qualify for certification.

State v. Colgrove

370 Or. 474 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 1, 2022

Those statutes, and the case law interpreting them, did not always clearly distinguish between the con- cepts of “appealability” and “reviewability.” … However, the history clearly demonstrates that any such increase would be attributed to the expansion of the scope of review of sentences in appeals involving misdemeanors.

State v. Turnidge

359 Or. 364 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 2016

If we were to deem joint trials to be “clearly inappropriate” in every such case, the statute would establish a presumption in favor of joint trials but then except the usual case to which the presumption would otherwise … That qualified as “true plan” evidence, as described by Imwinkelried.

State ex rel. Department of Human Services v. K. C.

227 Or. App. 216 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 1, 2009

Mother explained that he had recently received immunizations and that his unusual behavior was a side effect. The Criders returned to their residence in Oregon City with A; mother stayed at the apartment. … proved its case under ORS 419B.502, we do not discuss the court’s findings or conclusions regarding ORS 419B.504 except to note that *226 several of the allegations in the state’s petition relevant to that statute were quite clearly

Massey v. Seller

45 Or. 267 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1904

feet farther west than the main entrance, so that one crossing from the display room to the outside entrance would pass in a diagonal direction across the shipping ■ room, approaching the elevator shaft, but leaving it clearly … carries with it the inquiry as to what a prudent man would have done under like circumstances, and it is not for the court to teach the jury the ways of the prudent man;- for the latter, in legal contemplation, are better qualified

Seitz v. M.V. the Captantonis

203 F. Supp. 723 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 27, 1962

Clearly, this equipment had no use whatsoever if it was not to be used for the purpose of tauting the cable and thus securing the bulkhead. … I conclude that libelant has failed to establish either unseaworthiness or negligence and that his voluntary acts, as above mentioned, were the proximate cause of his injuries.

Ortiz v. United States Government

District Court, D. Oregon · May 15, 2023

FSA administers a Guaranteed Farm Loan Program through which it backs private lenders extending credit to family farmers unable to qualify for standard commercial loans. … Monetary damages are expressly exempted from the APA’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity. Dep’t of Army v.

Leadbetter v. Price

103 Or. 222 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1921

However, he held one share of stock in. the Crown-Columbia Pulp & Paper Co., which had been furnished him by Leadbetter, so that he could qualify as a director of *230 the concern. … This is clearly insufficient. 10. Although the foregoing considerations are decisive of the case, notice will be taken of an additional obstacle to appellant’s right to prevail in this suit.