Case law

In Re the Marriage of Forney

239 Or. App. 406 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 2010

He also purchased, with allotments from his military pension, three life insurance policies and established a Navy Federal Credit Union account. … It is clearly not a marital asset, because it was acquired by husband before the marriage. About that much, there appears to be no dispute.

State v. Lowell

249 Or. App. 364 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 18, 2012

In summary, this court is an "error-correcting" court, and its obligation is to follow precedents as established by the Supreme Court. … The court should revisit the policies underlying preservation and "plain error" and define them clearly for the benefit of bench and bar.

Tivnu: Building Justice v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 15, 2016

An organization that is established primarily for the benefit of its members, is not a qualifying charity.” OAR 150-307-0120(4)(b); see also, Goodwill Indus. of Columbia Willamette, Inc. v. … The savings are not clearly evident, as otherwise required by paragraph (9).

Thompson v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · Mar 21, 2014

The statute provides in relevant part: “A qualified taxpayer shall be allowed a credit against the taxes otherwise due under ORS 316 equal to the applicable percentage of the qualified taxpayer's … Oregon Administrative Rule 150-315.262(3) clearly states that child care payments “must be made by the parent claiming the working family child care credit.” See also ORS 315.262(3).

IBEW Local 89 v. Wallan

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2023

harm can qualify as a “personal stake” or as having a legal effect on the individual. … Petitioners do not have standing to bring this action based on the alleged institutional injuries.8 We thus turn to the few allegations in the affida- vits that are not clearly institutional injuries.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Stauffer

327 Or. 44 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1998

The Bar has the burden of establishing misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. ORS 9.536(2); BR 5.2. … DR 4-101(0 provides that a lawyer may reveal confidences or secrets necessary to establish a claim or defense on behalf of a lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal

Lafferty v. Providence Health Plans

706 F. Supp. 2d 1104 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 12, 2010

A through examination of the record establishes that the BBBD treatment meets the criteria for medically necessary services under the Policy as it has clearly significant health benefits, is of demonstrable value that exceeds … The court has the discretion to allow additional evidence not before the Plan Administrator, but should exercise this discretion “only when circumstances clearly establish that additional evidence is necessary to conduct

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.”).

Allen v. Multnomah County

179 Or. 548 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1946

exemption, notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional provision, which had formerly included “all churches, church property used for religious purposes, and houses of worship”, was later amended by the omission of the qualifying … We are of the opinion that no:exemption should be permitted in any event, unless the intention of the:legislature to grant it is clearly and unmistakably indicated by-the language of-the exempting.státute.

Wilson v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc.

186 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 3, 2001

The standard for establishing general jurisdiction is “fairly high,” Brand v. … These claims clearly implicate the seminal case of *1145 Brandenburg v.

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon v. United States

841 F. Supp. 1479 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 21, 1994

Appointments Clause Defendants argue the Appointments Clause does not apply to § 2719(b)(1)(A) because the Governor does not qualify as a federal appointee under the Buckley test. … Section 2719(a) clearly sets forth a general federal policy of prohibiting fee-to-trust conversions of off-reservation land for the purpose of establishing gaming operations for the benefit of Indian tribes.

City of La Grande v. Public Employes Retirement Board

284 Or. 173 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1978

Dunn, 52 Or. 475, 486 , 97 P. 811 (1908), recognized that intervention by the legislature in the controversy over "local option," clearly a "substantive" matter, "also induced the granting of (Home Rule) power to the legal … Such proposed charter shall be submitted to the qualified electors of such city, and if a majority of such qualified electors voting thereon ratify the same, it shall become the charter of such city, and shall become the

Lee v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 31, 2012

The Oregon Supreme Court has stated: “Not always clearly stated, but clearly implied in our decisions, is the rationale that an amended pleading should be permitted to relate back if the defendant is … The language of ORS 308A.724(2) is mandatory and clearly states that taxpayers seeking to qualify under that statute are allowed five years to qualify for the two-year farm use requirement. See also Hodel v.

Lay v. Proctor

147 Or. 545 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1934

The evidence clearly shows that respondent Bertha L. … We think that the evidence shows clearly that Jennie F.

Fazio v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 10, 2025

Chair Clem stated, in reference to Fazio’s activities, “this is clearly real farming.” (Id. at 43.) … ORS 308A.071 establishes income requirements based on the size of the “farm unit.”

Farmers' National Bank v. Woodell

38 Or. 294 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1900

That the competency of the witness should have been established before he testified concerning' the character of the land must be admitted: Rog'ers, Exp. Test. (2 ed.), § 15. … If the' instruction complained of did not fully state the hypothetical facts involved, or clearly explain the legal principle applicable thereto, it was incumbent upon the party objecting to that portion of the charge to

Becklin v. Board of Examiners for Engineering & Land Surveying

195 Or. App. 186 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 2004

being questioned regarding the specifications of the screens, he stated, “If you will read the engineering proposal and the solicitation package, and if you understand blue print reading, you will see that that detail is clearly … On the merits, the board contends that it was petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that he qualified for the exceptions.

Tokay Heights Development Co. v. Hull

92 Or. 159 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1917

This knowledge is established by unchallenged written testimony. … One great advantage of hillside orchards is immunity from spring frosts. They never have to ‘smudge’ as on the river bottom land.

State Ex Rel. White Lumber Sales, Inc. v. Sulmonetti

252 Or. 121 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1968

The pending litigation clearly lies in the wake of the order which White placed with Continental. Whether or not "title passed," the telephone order produced substantial business consequences in Oregon. … recognized that there are fundamental reasons in addition to fairness to the parties which dictate limitations on the jurisdictional reach of sister states when he said: "* * * Those restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity

Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc.

351 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 22, 2011

In the offer of proof that it submitted in opposition to plaintiffs motion in limine, Combined Transport asserted that a qualified expert physician would testify to Clemmer’s blood alcohol level at the time of the collision … In combination, ORS 31.600(3) and ORCP 19 B establish that a defendant must, in some way, affirmatively plead a specification of negligence on which it intends to rely, and that has not been pleaded by the plaintiff, to establish