Case law

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 v. Hendricks

273 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 19, 2015

The trial court acknowledged that Counts 3 and 4 were “based on the exact same conduct,” but explained that they “clearly don’t merge” because “each statutory provision requires proof * * * of elements that the other doesn … Conversely, “ [w]hen recklessness suffices to establish a culpable mental state, it is also established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly.” ORS 161.115(3).

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.

Bibeau v. PACIFIC NORTHWEST RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC.

980 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 28, 1997

Daniel DiIaconi (DiIaconi) argue that summary judgment should be granted because plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and they are shielded from liability by qualified immunity. … Although he did not seek medical attention, clearly he was aware of his recurring testicular pain, and groin rash, as well as his participation in, and details regarding the Experiments.

State v. Worsham

332 Or. App. 154 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 24, 2024

The prosecutor continued on the theme of control, then concluded by stating, “He has a duty, injecting himself, not to provoke or be the initial aggressor which he clearly does. … instruction from the court as to what it means to be the “initial aggres- sor,” a juror could reasonably—but incorrectly—conclude that defendant deciding to involve himself in the situation and yelling at C not to beat on women qualified

State Ex Rel. English v. Multnomah County

348 Or. 417 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2010

argued (1) that Measure 37 did not provide the exemption that the county claimed for procedural regulations and (2) that at least some of the regulations that the county had labeled as “health and safety regulations” did not qualify … Thus, even if the county were correct that the trial court exceeded its authority under Measure 37 by entering a judgment that unconditionally requires the payment of money, the trial court judgment would nonetheless be immune

Wemme v. First Church of Christ

110 Or. 179 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1924

Clearly, this is not the contingency contemplated by the testator, upon the happening of which the churches were to have the power to change the particular charity for another. … For these reasons the decree of the lower court will be reversed and the cause will be remanded to that court with directions to appoint not less than three nor more than five competent and qualified trustees to take over

Piazza v. State

261 Or. App. 425 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 26, 2014

Whether the statement was clearly and understanding^ made by the plaintiff or the defendant, and whether the language is correctly remembered and accurately reported by the witness. … Generally, hearsay is inadmissible unless it qualifies under an exception or exclusion from that general rule. OEC 802.

Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson County

168 Or. App. 624 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 28, 2000

First, the state program clearly regulates the licensing of water well constructors. ORS 537.750. … See OAR 690-217-0050 (licensed water well constructors are qualified to conduct well “pump” tests according to acceptable techniques).

Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Utterback

173 Or. 572 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1944

Every employe mentioned in paragraph XIII above [this refers to the employes alleged to be material and necessary witnesses as above numerated] is properly qualified by training and experience for the work he is performing … The distinction between this case and the cases at bar is clearly drawn in the case of Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad *590 Co. v. Terte, supra.

State v. K. J. B.

282 Or. App. 862 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 14, 2016

See ORS 426.110 (for purposes of a civil commitment hearing, “[t] he judge shall appoint one qualified examiner”); ORS 426.120 (examination requirements). … To establish that a person is a danger to others, ORS 426.005(l)(e)(A), “the state must establish that actual future violence is highly likely.” State v. M.

State v. Hickman/Hickman

358 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 8, 2015

Mowry, 350 Or 686, 698, 261 P3d 1 (2011) (“We will not depart from established precedent simply because the ‘personal policy preference[s]’ of the members of the court may differ from those of our predecessors who decided … , 357 Or 460, 485-86, 355 P3d 866 (2015), we recently summarized three “categories” of errors that would warrant our reconsideration of constitu- tional decisions: (1) rulings that amount to dicta; (2) rulings that are “clearly

In Re Valdez

250 B.R. 386 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 15, 1999

STANDARD The bankruptcy court’s findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Bankr.P. § 8013. Issues of law are reviewed de novo. U.S. v. Horowitz, 756 F.2d 1400, 1403 (9th Cir.1985). … What is required is that a substantial portion of the debt be disputed for it to fail to qualify to be subject to a dispute for purposes of section 303(h).

Fidanque v. OR. GOVT. STANDARDS & PRACT.

141 Or. App. 495 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 1996

Tidyman, 306 Or. 174, 182 , 759 P.2d 242 (1988): "Even * * * activities unquestionably devoted to constitutionally privileged purposes such as religion or free expression are not immune from regulations imposed for reasons … It then decided that, because the constitutional interests in free expression clearly outweigh any legislative interest in regulating campaign expenditures, the statutes violated both sections of the constitution.

Leight v. Union Security Insurance Co.

189 F. Supp. 3d 1039 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 24, 2016

The Policy The LTD Policy provides for a disability income benefit for eligible employees if the qualifying period is satisfied and the person is under the regular care and attendance of a doctor. LTD Policy 20. … The “Total Disability Test” is defined as follows: • during the first 36 months of a period of disability (including the qualifying period) an injury, sickness or pregnancy prevents you from performing with reasonable. continuity

Wetherell v. Douglas County

342 Or. 666 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 24, 2007

under which “profit” could be any “advantage” or “benefit,” because that definition would include a sentimental or psychological benefit to the ownership of land, which the statute, by using the words “profit in money,” clearly … Prior to that year, the statute qualified the “profit in money” requirement with a “gross income” clause that established a threshold of current commercial activity as part of its definition of “farm use.”

Oregon Trail Electric Consumers Cooperative, Inc. v. Co-Gen Co.

168 Or. App. 466 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 21, 2000

The court began by observing that, “[a]t first reading, the language of Article IV.B may not seem to clearly express under what circumstances prices may be modified.” … Thus, the evidence on which OTECC relies does not establish a “mutual” mistake.

White v. State Industrial Accident Commission

227 Or. 306 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 17, 1961

Both rules are well established and both have been employed by this court so many times that it is unnecessary to cite precedents. … The plaintiff challenges the act as violative of Oregon Constitution, Article I, § 20, which says: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen nor class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms

State v. P. F.

350 Or. App. 390 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 10, 2026

See generally ORS 426.701 (governing the procedures for seeking the commitment of persons with qualifying mental disorders who are determined to be “extremely dangerous”). … Nooth, 292 Or App 524, 531, 425 P3d 484 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 749 (2019) (James, J., concurring) (“Judges do not become immune to the inherent, unconscious, biases present in the human mind by virtue of their office.”).

Jones v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 000753a (or.tax 7-8-2008)

Oregon Tax Court · Jul 8, 2008

not establishing a partnership). … Circuit opined that "if engaging in business activity were sufficient to validate a partnership ASA would qualify." ASA Investerings , 201 F3d at 512 .