Case law

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.

Oregon Telecommunications Ass'n v. Oregon Department of Transportation

341 Or. 418 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 5, 2006

To recover those expenses, ODOT established by rule a schedule of fees that it charged to plaintiff utilities. … This court interprets a constitutional provision adopted through the referral process by following the methodology established in Roseburg School Dist. v.

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.

Belleville v. Davis

262 Or. 387 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1972

We agree that plaintiff’s evidence was not sufficient to establish a “scheme” to defraud. … established that entirely innocent misrepresentation may be sufficient.

State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. San Seng Saechao

167 Or. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 10, 2000

The state responds that, because Vinh also participated in the altercation, the evidence established the requisite number of participants. We agree with the state. … Therefore, viewing the word “participating” in isolation, Vinh’s involvement would appear to qualify. The question remains, however, whether the addition of the word “with” narrows the statutory meaning.

McMillin v. Walmart Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 5, 2024

When proceedings are brought in forma pauperis, a court evaluates whether the complaint “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Plaintiff’s allegation— that Defendant “stole” his can—if accepted as true, has sufficient factual content to establish a claim for conversion.

Willmar Development, LLC v. Illinois National Insurance

726 F. Supp. 2d 1280 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 21, 2010

It is also the insured’s burden to establish that their claim is within an exception to an exclusion. Id. at 514 , 156 P.3d 105 . 1. … The house’s cracking sheetrock constitutes “physical injury,” and the house itself is clearly “tangible property.”

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.

State v. Monaco

375 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 12, 2026

In that regard, we noted that the detectives “did not make any promise of immunity” and had explained that the defendant would be charged with murder no matter what he said. Id. at 32. … The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion “shows clearly” that the construction given the statute was consistent with prior Ohio law and the statute’s legislative history. Id.

State v. Metcalf

129 Or. 577 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 7, 1929

"The Court: It is not my idea that they must take one of two or three qualifying words in the statute, but I think the question is pretty well settled by the opening statement of the district attorney. … Such an act is clearly within our Code definition of malice, which is: "The terms `malice' and `maliciously' when so employed, import a wish to vex, annoy or injure another person, established either by proof or presumption

Murray v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 101018b (or.tax 8-23-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 23, 2011

Cole also testified that Plaintiffs have not claimed to qualify for the dependent care assistance programs and that, even if they did qualify, the amount of pre-tax income allowed would be limited to 25 percent. … Defendant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that *Page 15 Plaintiffs' tax year 2009 income is other than the amount reported by Plaintiffs and has, therefore, failed to meet the burden of proof. C.

Index Newspapers LLC v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 23, 2020

Because the Court considers any willful violation of this Order, or any express direction by a supervisor or commander to disregard or violate this Order, to be a violation of a clearly established constitutional right … and thus not subject to qualified immunity in any action brought against any individual employee, officer, or agent of the Federal Defendants under Bivens v.

Transportation Equip. Rent. v. OREGON AUTO. INS. CO

478 P.2d 620 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1970

The original complaint clearly stated a cause of action on the insurance binder. … Although it does not clearly appear from the opinion, the abstract of record in Yoshida discloses that the insurance proceeds had been paid into court.

Neal v. Davis

53 Or. 423 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1909

Does it clearly appear that it was his intention to provide for his children? Is it manifest upon the face of the will that his children were not overlooked or forgotten? Certainly not.” … These two classes are not necessarily identical, and, before they could be made so to appear, the fact would necessarily have to be alleged and then established by parol proof.

Allianz Global Risks v. ACE Property & Casualty Ins. Co.

367 Or. 711 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 25, 2021

A third defense raised by the insurers is based on “qualified pollution exclusion” provisions in the policies. … THE POLLUTION EXCLUSIONS The final issue we must resolve involves the “qualified pollution exclusion” clauses found in certain of Freightliner’s insurance policies.

Franklin v. State of Or.

563 F. Supp. 1310 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 25, 1983

Persons proceeding in for-ma pauperis are immune from the imposition of costs if they are unsuccessful. Because of their poverty, they are de facto immune from later tort actions for abuse of process. … immunity from damages.

Wheeler v. Marathon Printing, Inc.

157 Or. App. 290 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 25, 1998

Those effects of plaintiffs major depression clearly demonstrate a substantial limitation on his “major life activities” under ORS 659.400(2)(a) (1989). See Marconi v. … Under Lewis , such allowance is insufficient to establish IIED. Accordingly, we reverse the IIED judgment against Marathon.

Hayden v. City of Astoria

84 Or. 205 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 1, 1917

These circumstances clearly entitle plaintiffs to recover on a quantum meruit for the reasons set. forth in the former opinion of this court. 3-5. … ’ ’ This question was objected to on the ground that the witness was not qualified.

Jenkins v. Roberts

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 3, 2025

Even if Jenkins had named a proper defendant, however, he does not allege that he has a qualifying disability under the ADA. … Furthermore, it does not appear that Jenkins was “otherwise qualified” to work in TRCI’s kitchen given the eight-hour work requirement.

Menasha Corp. v. Crawford

332 Or. 404 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2001

Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993) (establishing that paradigm of statutory interpretation). … TTD benefits are not due and payable if the claim does not meet the qualifying statutory criteria.