Case law

State v. Lafferty

240 Or. App. 564 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 16, 2011

I know that the law provides for an increase in the maximum up to 30 years if I qualify as a dangerous offender. I understand that this will not happen in this case. … Moreover, as noted, defendant did not purport to qualify his waiver of a jury trial in any way; neither did he subsequently assert during the course of the trial that any limits or conditions applied to his waiver.

Donohoe v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 23, 2016

Qualified long-term care services Taxpayers may deduct expenses for medical care, which includes qualified long-term care services as defined in IRC section 7702B. IRC § 213(a), (d). … As discussed above, ORS 314.360 and 316.202 establish certain filing requirements with the Department.

Cockrum v. Graham

143 Or. 233 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 16, 1933

Cockrum, respondent in this appeal, was appointed administrator of McLeod’s estate, and, after qualifying, proceeded to discharge the duties of his office; April 17,1930, one Susan R. … Clearly, an intelligent clerk would ignore that clause when drafting the writ. In City of Geneva v. The People, 98 Ill.

Ferrari v. Beaver Hill Coal Co.

54 Or. 210 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1909

It is fully and clearly established, under the repeated and uniform holdings of this court, that where the employee is immature in *227 years, and is inexperienced in the work in which he is employed, that feature becomes … Portland, 40 Or. 389, 405 ( 60 Pac. 985 : 67 Pac. 305 ) the law upon this subject is clearly and concisely stated by Mr.

John I. Haas, Inc. v. State Tax Commission

227 Or. 170 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 10, 1961

"What may have been the customary method in 1899 was clearly not the method *182 followed 'by Ray and Haas in 1950 and 1951. … It established a local agent in Madison, Missouri, to buy cream in its behalf and ship it thence to Quincy for conversion into creamery products at that point.

State v. Gray

46 Or. 24 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1905

the witness in his direct examination, or properly connected therewith, and that a witness cannot upon cross-examination be questioned with regard to that which does not impeach, rebut, explain, or modify, or in some way qualify … Law, § 310. *29 The rule is thoroughly established that the plea of self-defense cannot be sustained when the evidence shows that the defendant was the aggressor: State v. Hawkins, 18 Or. 476 ( 23 Pac. 475 ).

Venture Properties, Inc. v. Parker

223 Or. App. 321 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 29, 2008

The evidence in the record clearly establishes that defendant had received notices from both DSL and the Corps that his wetlands activities had violated the federal Clean Water Act and the state *353 Removal-Fill Law. … ODFW, 166 Or App 660, 666 , 2 P3d 921 (2000) (unless immunity defense could be established on the face of the plaintiffs complaint, it was not a proper subject of an ORCP 21 dismissal). 4 Here, defendant apparently is attempting

Oregon Restaurant Services, Inc. v. Oregon State Lottery

199 Or. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 2005

ORS 183.480(3), however, qualifies that conferral of jurisdiction: “No action or suit shall be maintained as to the validity of any agency order except a final order as provided in this section and ORS 183.482, 183.484, 183.490 … In every case, the use of the term “sales” clearly refers to actual exchanges for money, not the value of gifts or gratuities.

Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc.

331 Or. 38 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 14, 2000

The broad public use analysis relied on an express or clearly implied invitation from the owner of the Lloyd Center to the public not only to shop,-but to congregate in the shopping center for a variety of business, social … The court declined to do so, stating: “[W]e are not inclined to overturn Alderwood because the ‘doctrine [of stare decisis] requires a clear showing that an established rule is incorrect and harmful before it is abandoned

Oregon, State Highway Com'n v. DeLong Corp.

9 Or. App. 550 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 7, 1972

Glen Paxson, a highly qualified former deputy state highway engineer with over 40 years’ experience in bridge construction. … have been used, but all agreed that one tremie pipe was clearly not enough.

Rolex Employees Retirement Trust v. Mentor Graphics Corp.

749 F. Supp. 1042 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 29, 1990

Clearly, any claim which sounds in negligence under Oregon law will have as two of its elements “duty” and “breach of that duty.” … Rolex has alleged no such conduct on the part of Mentor Graphics and has failed to establish the sort of direct nexus between the parties necessary to establish a duty under the traditional test.

Fairbrother v. Rinker

274 Or. 525 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1976

All of these cases involved the measure of damages for injury to property, and the reference to what was just to compel the defendant to pay clearly related to the manner of measuring a monetary loss when personal property … , but is a decision which will add further confusion to the law on this subject in that it makes no reference to our previous decisions, as cited above, and leaves it unclear whether some or all of them have been either qualified

Knepper v. Brown

182 Or. App. 597 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 17, 2002

American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery (AACS), alleging in pertinent part that AACS had falsely implied that its members had certain qualifications and skills, thus misleading patients into believing that its members were as qualified … We went on to quote a further example of attenuated “but for” causation insufficient to establish damages for fraud, quoting from William L.

McKee v. Foster

219 Or. 322 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1959

Very likely, a mere light flashing in the machine or other mechanical indication of a high score would be enough to qualify as a “credit, or other representative of value or evidence of winning” capable of redemption or exchange … Coats recognized that the term “lottery” has no technical or established legal meaning. They held that the essential elements of a lottery are prize, chance and consideration.

Teitelman v. SAIF

374 Or. 271 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 25, 2025

But that “temporal relationship” is not as clearly defined as SAIF suggests. … The majority does not identify any legislative history that clearly suggests a dif- ferent understanding.

De Laittre v. Board of Com'rs

149 F. 800 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Jan 14, 1907

Being bound to the observance of the law, the board is inhibited from selling to any but qualified purchasers. It cannot sell to an alien. Spencer v. Carlson, 36 Or. 364 , 59 Pac. 708 . … Suppose ¡¡mother person, being qualified, had made application for the land in dispute, and thereby controverted the right of the plaintiffs to a deed. > This would have brought on a contest, and the board would clearly ha

Hollinquest v. Payne

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 19, 2021

Put simply, Plaintiff argues he has established a genuine dispute of material fact regarding his Eighth Amendment claims, precluding summary judgment. … Plaintiff also argues Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See id. The Court disagrees, and adopts this portion of the F&R, ECF 60 at 15–24, in full. C.

State v. Tourtillot

289 Or. 845 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1980

The checkpoint was established on the first weekend of hunting season. … If the commission fails to submit sufficient qualified nominees for such positions, the Department of State Police shall make its own selections.”

Whipple v. Howser

291 Or. 475 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 11, 1981

As one student of the subject wrote long ago: "There is no such thing as a law that does not extinguish rights, powers, privileges, or immunities acquired under previously existing laws. That is what laws are for. … Lowery clearly reaffirms the rules of construction and the substantive/procedural distinction which inheres in those rules.

State v. Johnson

328 Or. App. 340 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2023

The trial court denied the MJOA, conclud- ing that the evidence was sufficient to establish the elements of each offense. … As discussed above, a qualifying threat under Rangel must “instill[ ] in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker.” Rangel, 328 Or at 303.