Case law

State v. Patnesky

265 Or. App. 356 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 2014

Thus, the phrase “engaging in” qualifies “passive resistance” as a particular activity; in this context, “engaging in *** passive resistance” is not merely a characterization of how an individual may refuse a lawful order … “(c) ‘Resists’ means the use or threatened use of violence, physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person and includes, but is not limited to, behavior clearly intended

McGanty v. Staudenraus

321 Or. 532 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1995

In reaching that conclusion, the court noted that “it would defy both reason and fairness to hold liable an employer who wrongfully discharges an employee but to immunize from liability an employer who, for equally improper … Because nothing in the complaint qualifies that allegation or makes it ambiguous, however, we have no occasion to construe plaintiffs admission. 4 The parties disagree about whether the plaintiff or the corporate-agent defendant

Brusco Towboat Co. v. State Ex Rel. State Land Board

284 Or. 627 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1978

It is our belief that the state has failed to establish that the defendants are committing any wrong upon the locus in quo which entitles it to the relief which it seeks. … The fact that plaintiffs’ business activities, or some of them, are dependent upon navigation does not immunize them from such a charge.

First Immanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Oct 24, 2024

When interpreting a statute, the court follows the framework established in State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171, 206 P3d 1042 (2009); Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. … Additionally, Plaintiff is clearly not a first-time filer or a public entity.

Mogul Transportation Co. v. Larison

181 Or. 252 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 1947

Maximum prices established by the Federal Price Administrator are published in the Federal Register, the contents of which are required by the federal statute to be judicially noticed by the courts. 44 U. S. C. … On the contrary, *265 such qualified refusal was reasonable and justifiable. 6 Am. Jur., Bailments, section 169; Anno. 43 A. L. R., at pp. 172, 173. It would be intolerable if the law were otherwise.

Taylor v. Olsen

282 Or. 343 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 16, 1978

The shift appears between section 363 of the 1934 Restatement of Torts, which qualified the general rule of nonliability to persons outside the land for natural conditions on the land only by a caveat "expressing no opinion … How would someone test a tree for rot that is not clearly visible? A Well, you either have to drill into it or chop into it. Q Now, by chopping into it you could just chop off the bark, perhaps?

Hughes v. PeaceHealth

204 Or. App. 614 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 15, 2006

As defendant explains, “[t]he legislature clearly considers a wrongful death action to provide recompense for injuries leading to death * * (Emphasis in original.) … this court has adhered to the view that no right of action for wrongful death existed at common law.”). 7 Article I, section 20, provides, “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities

Oregon State Police Officers' Ass'n v. State

323 Or. 356 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1996

Accordingly, because the plaintiff qualified under that plan when she first went to work, she was entitled to be included in the original plan. … The statutory pension system and the relationship between the state and its employees clearly established a contractual obligation to provide an undiminished level of benefits at a fixed cost.

State v. Cave

321 Or. App. 81 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 27, 2022

We review the trial court’s determination that evidence of uncharged misconduct qualifies for admission under OEC 404(3) or OEC 404(4) for legal error. State v. Terry, 309 Or App 459, 461, 482 P3d 105 (2021). … Upon review of the record, we disagree with the state that this is an instance where the trial court’s expla- nation of its ruling indicates that it clearly considered the propensity-based nature of the evidence in its OEC

Alvarez v. University of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 29, 2022

established. … Plaintiff did not address Defendants’ arguments concerning the Eleventh Amendment or qualified immunity.

Walsh v. Enge

154 F. Supp. 3d 1113 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 31, 2015

Ninth Circuit precedent clearly establishes that it is reasonable for city councils immediately to exclude a disruptive individual from a meeting for the duration of that meeting. … According to the Ninth Circuit, “imposing a complete bar on '[the plaintiffs] entry into' the Building, clearly exceeds the bounds of reasonableness clearly established' by White, Kindt, and Norse as a response to a single

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.

Tye v. McFetridge

342 Or. 61 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 14, 2006

DCBS established that method in OAR 436-060-0025. … The second and third sentences clearly differentiate treatment according to the length and continuity of the worker’s employment.

Parsons v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 23, 2020

Plaintiff, as the party seeking affirmative relief, bears the burden of proof and must establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence. … Comm’r, 105 TCM (CCH) 1733, 2013 WL 1953732 (US Tax Ct), the taxpayers “bought a piece of raw land in wine country” intending to establish a vineyard.

West v. Kozer

104 Or. 94 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1922

This may be qualified by the statement that if that which is valid and that which is invalid are so inseparably united that neither can stand alone, the whole act must *105 perish. … The lawmakers clearly intended to include casualties of whatever kind wherever happening to workmen coming within the purview of the act.

United States v. Pitawanakwat

120 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 15, 2000

That crime clearly was not committed as part of any “uprising or other violent political disturbance.” … Clearly not all native people supported the defense of the encampment at Lake Gustafsen.

Spray v. Board of Medical Examiners

50 Or. App. 311 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 9, 1981

This determination is dependent on the practices of the medical community as established by expert testimony. … Such a denial was clearly in his discretion. See OAR 137-03-040(5). From the record it was apparent that petitioner could have examined Dr. Larsen during the proceedings.

Schoenheit/Unger v. Rosenblum

Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2015

The agency shall be considered established if the majority of votes favor the establishment. … (b) Does not impair the rights and immunities provided under ORS 30.930 to 30. 947. SECTION 10.

State v. Martinez

275 Or. App. 451 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 2015

On the other hand when they have a conversation back and forth with somebody then I think they clearly have, so those are the two extremes. … And, because at least one text message in Exhibit 51 qualified as an adoptive admission, we affirm the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of that exhibit.

Horn v. Hill

180 Or. App. 139 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 13, 2002

On the other hand, the state’s medical evidence was countered by a qualified opposing opinion. … No suggested clarification to date — including the concurrence’s proposal — has clearly defined, for the benefit of bench and bar, the minimum threshold required to establish a “tendency to affect the result.”