Case law

State v. Adams

340 Or. App. 661 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 29, 2025

And that’s basically establishing your best known match for this particular firearm.” … “In order to qualify as science, a proposition ‘must be derived by the scientific method.’

Humphers v. McElroy

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 29, 2019

Similarly, here, the effects of the pepper spray may qualify as a “serious medical need.” See Clement, 298 F.3d at 904. … Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 2 Defendants make additional arguments in support of their motion for summary judgment, including Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity.

Murphy v. Precision Castparts Corp.

District Court, D. Oregon · May 24, 2021

Plaintiffs to establish falsity. … In other words, Coffman’s opinion established loss causation with respect to Lead Plaintiffs’ primary theory of liability on the FY16 target statements, but did not establish loss causation for the other challenged statements

State v. Jordan

146 Or. 504 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1933

The procedure to be followed by trial courts was clearly stated by Mr. Justice Harris in a concurring opinion in State v. … The object and purpose of the rule is clearly stated in State v. Laundy, 103 Or. 443 ( 204 P. 958 , 206 P. 290 ).

Shainwald v. City of Portland

153 Or. 167 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1936

The primary or first purpose of the plans and specifications to be submitted to the electors is clearly for their information. … Thus far in the proceedings for the holding of the election and voting for the establishment of the sewage disposal system, we think there was a substantial compliance with the statute.

Anthony v. Veatch

189 Or. 462 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1950

It is well established that there is no necessary conflict between those rights. Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240, 262 , 35 L. ed. 159, 11 Sup. Ct. 559. … In our opinion, the act does not, in the respect mentioned, grant to one class of citizens any privilege *488 or immunity which, upon the same terms, does not equally belong to all citizens.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Yacob

318 Or. 10 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1993

The third person was needed in order to qualify to receive the nephew’s disability checks directly from the social security agency, relieving the client of that responsibility. … The mitigating factor of remorse is not established here.

Jerry v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

97 F. Supp. 2d 1219 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 3, 2000

A claimant bears the initial burden of proof to establish disability. Howard v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484, 1486 (9th Cir.1986). … Renner qualifies as a medical source.

Dundon v. United States

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 2, 2024

Such a conclusory allegation devoid of factual support is insufficient to establish that Plaintiff suffered a harmful or offensive contact. … This contact is clearly harmful and offensive to Plaintiff, and he alleges that the officers intended to bring about harmful or offensive conduct.

State v. Haugen

349 Or. 174 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2010

. *182 ORS 45.275 provides, in part: “The court shall appoint a qualified interpreter in a civil or criminal proceeding, and a hearing officer or the desig-nee of a hearing officer shall appoint a qualified interpreter in … “unless qualified interpreters are available to provide assistance.”

Edwards v. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 23, 2024

Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) (establishing the 30-day deadline for removal from the initial pleading); 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) (establishing that if a case as stated in the four corners of the initial pleading is … Instead, Defendants removed based on their belief that diversity jurisdiction existed, despite their awareness that the complaint on its face did not clearly establish that fact.

Fierling

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 12, 2026

A state court decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if the state court identifies the correct legal principle but applies it in an “objectively unreasonable” manner. Woodford v. … Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 11 (2002) (explaining that state court decisions may be set aside only “if they are not merely erroneous, but an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, or are based on an unreasonable

Wassom v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Feb 17, 2016

Previously, where a taxpayer established entitlement to a deduction but did not establish the amount of the deduction, the court was allowed to estimate the amount allowable. See, Cohan v. … The evidence clearly shows that Plaintiffs incurred mileage related to ranch business activities.

City of Salem v. Oregon-Washington Water Service Co.

144 Or. 93 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1933

Somehow he increased the flow of water and thereupon the defendant asserted a right to some of it, and instituted a suit to establish his claim. … We are clearly satisfied that the circuit court did not err when it sustained the demurrer of Hurd and D’Arcy.

State v. RY

211 Or. App. 298 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 14, 2007

In isolation — and notwithstanding the qualifying “if you would please” — that statement *307 could reasonably be understood as a command. … Gladden, the record establishes that Guinto never responded to Bennett’s requests for consent by refusing consent.

Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

817 F. Supp. 2d 1290 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 19, 2011

NMFS also established several terms and conditions required under the ITS, as well as reasonable and prudent measures. BiOp at 32-34. … The guidelines establish dual regulatory presumptions.

Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union

103 Or. 514 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1921

Those cases, however, do not purport to establish limitations upon the application of the rule for all cases. 11. Plaintiff’s complaint, however, may be sustained upon other grounds. … These authorities fully sustain tbe result reached in tbe original opinion as to tbe sufficiency of tbe complaint, and at tbe same time qualify and explain tbe sense in which it was intended to use tbe phrase “power coupled

Department of Human Services v. G. D. W.

353 Or. 25 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2012

In that 9 sense, the state's position is adverse to the child, and evidence presented by 10 the state to establish jurisdiction is offered 'against' the child. … the state always may attempt to offer a child's out-of-court statement about "an act of abuse" under OEC 803(18a)(b) -- although it must then also make a reliability showing that is not required when a statement qualifies

League of Oregon Cities v. State

334 Or. 645 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 4, 2002

Under those circumstances, plaintiffs’ 18 challenge to Measure 7 is not premature, because the ultimate, official result clearly can be forecasted. See Brown v. … In other words, subsection (c) permits the state and local governments not to pay a claim that otherwise would qualify under subsection (a), if that claim is made in response to a regulation that forbids using the subject

State Ex Rel. State Office for Services to Children & Families v. Freeman

174 Or. App. 194 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 9, 2001

He hopes to rely on his parents to provide a temporary guardianship until he can get “better established.” … Thus, the evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates father’s parental unfitness.