Case law

Gilliam County v. Department of Environmental Quality

114 Or. App. 369 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 22, 1992

Only if the action was clearly so authorized is there any reason to decide whether the state or local government has adopted a policy that the constitution forbids.” 297 Or at 565 . … It clearly wished to avoid spreading among all Oregonians the costs of mitigating environmental risks that they did not create.

Corkum v. Bi-Mart Corp.

271 Or. App. 411 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 28, 2015

In the report that he wrote after the examination, Bernardo stated that claimant’s right inguinal hernia “clearly has been present for some period of time.” … Once the claimant establishes a compensable injury, the burden shifts to the employer to establish that “the otherwise compensable injury is not, or is no longer, the major contributing cause” of the claimant’s disability

State v. Williams

374 Or. 648 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2025

Third-degree robbery, as defined under ORS 164.395, establishes the base level of that offense. … It would be clearly robbery, but it’s a threat to do bodily harm. And a threat to do bodily harm to this person could be extortion if it’s a threat to do harm to him in the future.

Doe v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

352 Or. 77 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 14, 2012

BSA thus has failed to 10 show that it is clearly entitled to the mandamus remedy it seeks. … Ultimately, the court concluded that the hearings 17 outlined in former ORS 136.617 (1987) qualified as adjudications that fell within the 18 scope of Article I, section 10. Id.

City of Enterprise v. State

156 Or. 623 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 3, 1937

The individual appointed qualifies by taking an oath and furnishing a bond “in such amount as the court and the state treasurer shall determine, * * * The compensation of said municipal administrator shall be fixed by the … The act clearly contemplates equity receiver-ships for insolvent municipalities. It employs the term municipal administrator, but includes within that term all of the power usually possessed by a receiver.

Johnson v. Garrett

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 11, 2024

Defendants argue in their motion that Plaintiff’s claim fails because he admitted (1) that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) that Defendant S.F. is entitled to qualified … immunity; (3) that Defendants did not have the intent to deprive him of his rights; (4) that he was not injured; (5) that he suffered no lost wages; (6) that he caused his own injuries, if any; (7) that Defendant S.F.

Gilbride v. Smith

328 Or. App. 565 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 11, 2023

Father’s attorney proposed a “qualified and respected” evaluator who had conducted over 140 such 570 Gilbride v. … Sewell, 257 Or App 462, 469, 307 P3d 464, rev den, 354 Or 389 (2013) (“An abuse of discretion occurs when a court exercises its discretion to an end not justified by, and clearly against, evidence and rea- son.”

Mouktabis v. Clackamas County Assessor

327 Or. App. 763 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 7, 2023

On remand from the Supreme Court, we concluded that the same online review qualified as a matter of public interest under the anti- SLAPP statute. Neumann v. … Hanson, 190 Or App 412, 417-18, 79 P3d 404 (2003) (litigation privilege provides immunity for conduct and statements made in connection with judicial proceedings, but there is an exception for “wrongful initiation” actions

State v. Brown

297 Or. 404 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1984

Any relevant conclusions which are supported by a qualified expert witness should be received unless there are other reasons for exclusion. … We conclude no judgment of polygraph testing’s validity or potential rate of error can be established based on available scientific evidence.

Gilley Co. v. Mutual Wholesale Drug Co.

59 Or. App. 48 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 8, 1982

Parr stated that at least one message had clearly indicated that he had an offer on the. Mutual warehouse. … Cota would have been able to qualify that agreement for that earnest money and the conditions. He was the broker. “Q. So, you don’t — you don’t know what would have happened? “A. No. “Q.

Lee v. Hoff

163 Or. 374 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1939

across diagonally, and have to be limited and qualified as to how it got over there.” … We are clearly satisfied that the above exception does not suffice as a basis for the plaintiff’s contention.

State v. Morales

367 Or. 222 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 19, 2020

To the extent that Erickson and Rosentreter could be read as establishing such a presumption on any ground other than the now-amended statute, we expressly disavow those decisions. … A disincentive to provide security for a family member or friend who clearly qualifies for security and who fully complies with the terms of that security is, by its very nature, a policy decision to jail people

State v. West

250 Or. App. 196 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 31, 2012

He did not attempt to establish that information concerning the functioning and reliability of the Intoxilyzer was not available to him. … The issue is how far the State goes in preparing you for trial, and you have pointed to constitutional cases which relate to something far different, that relate to exculpatory statements or exculpatory information or clearly

Davis v. Davis

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 2, 2021

To state a claim under Title II, Plaintiff must allege four elements: (1) he “is an individual with a disability;” (2) he “is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of some public entity's services … To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title IV, a plaintiff must show that (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) he suffered an adverse action; and (3) there was a causal link between the two.

State Ex Rel. State Public Welfare Commission v. County Court of Malheur County

185 Or. 392 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1949

Lee Patterson are the duly appointed, qualified and acting members of the State Public Welfare Commission, and that J. H. Luihn is the duly elected chairman thereof. … A., Tit. 42, section 302, which set forth the conditions with which a state must comply in order to qualify for Federal funds.

The Active

1 F. Cas. 64 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 12, 1866

Of whatever is established by law the court" takes judicial notice, and the same need not be shown by either pleading or proof. … If the wording of both sections clearly embrace the same case, which is to be held nugatory? I know of no principle of law that would enable me to reject either.

McPherson v. Employment Division

285 Or. 541 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1979

Morgan, 15 Or App 454 , 516 P2d 495 (1973), clearly intended a binding statutory interpretation both in holding that wage discrimination based on sex is "good cause” to quit because it is an unlawful employment practice, … For instance, passages in the referee’s Conclusions and Reasons suggest an assumption that the grounds for leaving a job, to qualify as "good cause” under the statute, must be attributable to the employer.

Landis v. Wick

154 Or. 199 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1936

, unless plaintiff, before resting has relieved him by establishing it or supplying facts clearly presumptive of it. … The record contains positive testimony that those who looked in the direction of the bicycle saw it clearly.

McKenzie Flyfishers v. McIntosh

158 F. Supp. 3d 1085 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 22, 2016

Because the fee shifting provisions of the ESA constitute partial waivers of sovereign immunity, the waivers “must strictly be construed in favor of the United States.” Ardestani v. … Frost’s timesheet includes time spent on “press” and “media” relations, 7 matters specific to ODFW and- other cases, and matters not clearly linked to this case. As such, this court deducts that time from Mr.

Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores - Kroger Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 6, 2023

When a worker requests a medical arbiter examination, the arbiter’s report is instead used to establish impairment—unless a prepon- derance of the medical evidence establishes that the attend- ing physician’s findings are … She argues that the arbiter panel clearly identified the newly accepted condition, and unambiguously attributed 40 percent of her impairment to that condition.