Case law

Ritter v. Florence City Police Department

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 6, 2025

To qualify for in forma pauperis status, a civil litigant must demonstrate that the litigant is unable to pay court fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); O’Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617. … A Court must also assess whether the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Rohrer v. Oswego Cove, LLC

309 Or. App. 489 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 3, 2021

law is not available because ORS [chapter] 659A provides adequate remedies to Plaintiff for any alleged retaliation for engaging in pro- tected employment activity,” noting that, in its view, plain- tiff’s claim would “clearly … Oswego Cove, LLC did not err by dismissing [it] on summary judgment” where “none of the actions for which plaintiff claims to have been retaliated against qualify as * * * ‘reports’ of information that plaintiff believed

Wyers v. American Medical Response Northwest, Inc.

360 Or. 211 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 11, 2016

In contrast to the first mental state requirement, then, the second one clearly refers to constructive awareness of a particular fact— another person’s physical or financial abuse—not awareness of the defendant’s own conduct … AMR does not dispute that each of the six plaintiffs qualified as a “vulnerable person” within the meaning of ORS 124.100(1)(e). 5  As we note later in this opinion, the evidence in the record is sufficient to permit

Managed Healthcare Northwest, Inc. v. Department of Consumer & Business Services

189 Or. App. 444 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 2003

Petitioners also argue that OAR 436-015-0070(2) “exceeds or contravenes specific, clearly expressed statutory policies and mandates” because, pursuant to ORS 656.260(4)(a), the MCO must formulate a plan that “proposes to … It’s just that you have established some type of patient-physician relationship with that individual and that individual then is your attending physician.” Id. (statement of Ed Redman).

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.

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.”

In Re Legislative Apportionment

228 Or. 562 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1961

The constitution clearly demands that "the number of senators and representatives for each county or district shall be determined by dividing the total population of such county or district by such respective ratios," (i.e … NOTES [1] Original jurisdiction is conferred upon this court by virtue of Article IV, § 6 (2) (a), which reads as follows: "Original jurisdiction hereby is vested in the Supreme Court upon the petition of any qualified elector

Fudge v. Towers

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 29, 2024

A plaintiff may also qualify for a preliminary injunction by showing that there are serious questions going to the merits of his claim and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor, so long as the other Winter … A request for a mandatory injunction seeking relief well beyond the status quo is disfavored and shall not be granted unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party. Stanley v. Univ. of Southern.

State of Oregon v. Kuhnhausen

201 Or. 478 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1954

In my opinion the present majority holding clearly demonstrates such misunderstanding and confusion. … Lee, supra, but it immediately qualified it.

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.

Bernard v. First National Bank of Oregon

275 Or. 145 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1976

In cases involving claims of money damages all litigation presumes a desire on the part of the judicial establishment to make the wrongdoer pay for the wrongs he has committed, but to do this by applying settled or clearly … Several provisions of our statute clearly indicate to the contrary.

State v. Hensley

281 Or. App. 523 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 12, 2016

In Oatney , police played a recording of the petitioner’s immunized statements during an interrogation of the petitioner’s code-fendant. Id. at 197-98 . … On appeal, the state does not clearly raise an attenuation argument; to the extent that the trial court may have rested its conclusion on attenuation, it erred.

Baertlein and Stocks

303 Or. App. 51 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 18, 2020

And, even if the judgment is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence establishes that intent. … City of Eugene, 297 Or App 775, 787-88, 444 P3d 1116 (2019) (the content of dis- cussions during contract negotiations qualifies as extrinsic evidence that may be considered under the first step of the Yogman analysis); Batzer

State Land Board v. Kolovrat

220 Or. 448 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1960

This thought is clearly affirmed by Article I of that agreement, wherein its controlling purposes and objectives are stated. … The contrary is clearly evident from a reading of the entire agreement.

Northwestern National Insurance v. Averill

149 Or. 672 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1935

A conclusion is clearly warranted that the present notice of appeal is not invalid merely on account of the fact that a nonresident attorney signed it. … Without reviewing our recent decisions at greater length, it suffices to state that they clearly indicate that Oliver v. Harvey and Wolf v.

D. O. v. Richey

301 Or. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 2019

When petitioner crossed the intersection and could distin- guish his words clearly, respondent raised issues related to traffic safety and policing. … Notable here is the absence of evidence from 14 It is well established across jurisdictions that photographing and filming government officials while they are conducting official duties in public is integral

Brabham v. Patenta N.V.

614 F. Supp. 568 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 5, 1984

A reading of the statute clearly indicates that § 17(a) was not enacted for the special benefit of a succinct class of individuals but rather represents a “general censure of fraudulent practices____” Bruns v. … In addition to this basic disagreement, two courts had qualified the remedy, Dorfman v. First Boston Corp., 336 F.Supp. 1089 (E.D.Pa.1972), Greater Iowa Corp. v.

White v. Vogt

258 Or. App. 130 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 14, 2013

are in conjunction with a building permit and the final grade after backfill will not exceed a 2:1 slope.” 2 Under SRC 65.080, the limitations imposed in SRC 65.050 “may be varied by the director [of public works] if a qualified … Plaintiffs contend that SRC 69.060 and the Graduated Response Table set forth “a clearly ministerial five-step procedure for the City to follow in issuing permits.”

Glasgow v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · May 10, 2013

DECISION TC-MD 120788N 2 Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish her case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. … Plaintiff reasoned that, “With the language, and provision of the exempt status Legislator has declared; (A) Wages are Immune from withholding in the ‘Absence’ of a Tax Liability, and, (B) Wages

Gollersrud v. LPMC, LLC

Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2023

LPMC, LLC was sufficient to establish points one and two. … “Though an employer may have a comparatively broad right to monitor the email messages flowing through its systems, they are not the only party with a qualified right to do so.”