Case law

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.”

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.

Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Portland

243 Or. App. 133 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 25, 2011

Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 587 F3d 966, 981 (9th Cir 2009) (holding that, under the First Amendment, a provision of the town’s sign ordinance regulating the size, number, hours of display, location, and construction of “qualifying … Redrafting, on the other hand, includes completely eliminating a word, phrase, or *160 concept that the original text clearly and intentionally includes or adding a completely new word, phrase, or concept that it does not

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.

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

State v. Illig-Renn

341 Or. 228 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 24, 2006

The state sought review of the Court of Appeals decisions in Illig-Renn III and Illig-Renn IV, arguing that this court’s cases clearly establish that only statutes that expressly proscribe expression are subject to facial … Robertson * * * this court established a framework for evaluating whether a law violates Article I, section 8.

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.

In Re Heritage Mall Associates

184 B.R. 128 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Jul 11, 1995

This result is improper and may discourage qualified practitioners from participating in bankruptcy cases; a result that is clearly contrary to Congressional intent. 84 B.R. at 671, 672 . … The UST has argued, however, and this court agrees, that the burden is upon the applicant to establish the necessary factors which would enable this court to conclude that the fee agreement is reasonable.

Meunier v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance

51 F. Supp. 3d 1023 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 24, 2014

Under Oregon law, the bar for establishing unconscionability has, historically, been a high one. See Bagley v. Mt. … Plaintiffs allegations in support of his claim for breach of the contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing clearly all relate to events that occurred prior to 2000.

Conant v. Brown

248 F. Supp. 3d 1014 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 29, 2017

states from denying any person the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law, from denying any person the equal protection of the laws, and from enforcing any laws abridging the privileges and immunities … "Elector” is defined as "an individual qualified to vote under section 2, Article II, Oregon Constitution.” O.R.S. 254.005(4).

Universal Frozen Foods, Co. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.

697 F. Supp. 389 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 20, 1987

Secondary Meaning If a trade dress is determined to be nonfunctional, it must also be inherently distinctive or have acquired secondary meaning to qualify for trademark protection. … This issue is not clearly answered in this Circuit. I am persuaded that under some circumstances the relevant buyer class may be other than the ultimate consumers.

Thompson v. The Nith

36 F. 86 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 30, 1888

The admission as to their condition is qualified by this circumstance, and, if the fact was otherwise, the carrier may show it. … The admission establishes the fact, prima facie, that the anvils were' in good order when shipped, and the burden of proof is on the claimant to show the contrary.

State v. Kimbrough

285 Or. App. 84 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 2017

“Under that standard, an attempt *** must be established by conduct that is corroborative of the actor’s criminal purpose.” State v. Carlton, 361 Or 29, 45 , 388 P3d 1093 (2017). … There is no special rule regarding whether a solicitation is also an attempt: “[U]nder Oregon law, ‘[s]olicitation *** qualifies as a “substantial step” if, under the facts, the defendant’s actions exceed mere preparation

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.”

State v. Hunt

271 Or. App. 603 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 10, 2015

So if [defendant] would like an attorney and she qualifies, that would be an appropriate time to do that. “THE COURT: Okay. [Defendant], the district attorney’s office is taking the REAP off the table. … The state responds that defendant never asserted below that she was confused or did not understand the REAP offer, the terms of which are clearly set out in the paperwork defendant received.

State v. Cockrell

174 Or. App. 442 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 6, 2001

As the investigation progressed, defendant qualified his admissions by explaining that, while he meant to say that the touching was inappropriate in light of his prior sexual misconduct and the counseling he had received … The state contends that defendant’s prior conduct was relevant to establish his intent to obtain sexual gratification when he touched J.C.’s crotch area while roughhousing.

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).

Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus.

289 Or. App. 507 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 28, 2017

The Kleins have not provided us with any persuasive explanation for why the legislature would have intended to grant equal privileges and immunities to individuals in same-sex relationships while simultaneously excepting … reason requirement so long as it "provide[s] an explanation connecting the facts of the case and the result reached, and [there is] no indication that, in making its decision, the [agency] relied on evidence that did not qualify

State of Oregon v. Cahill

208 Or. 538 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1956

Neither he nor we can now immunize him from liability on the theory that the money was delivered to him with the understanding that he might use it for personal expenses as a debtor of the District. … Stanley MacDonald, an experienced and highly qualified expert, testified, in part, as follows: “The Witness: My conclusion that the signature John D.

Computer Concepts, Inc. v. Brandt

310 Or. 706 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1990

Kross, supra, however, this court took the view that a one-on-one arrangement could qualify as a security. … Often a RICO action will be brought before continuity can be established in this way.