Case law

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

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.

Clark v. Jackson County

313 Or. 508 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1994

LUBA determined that the tracts involved did not qualify for permits as “existing legal lots of record,” as that term was used in the county ordinance, and the county disagreed. … Further, the legislature since has established ancillary regulation of some surface mining in ORS 517.750 to 517.900; Jackson County regulates additionally in LDO 272.050.

Teicher v. REGENCE HEALTH AND LIFE INS. CO.

562 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 20, 2008

On October 31, 2007, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the ground that the record establishes he is totally disabled, and, therefore, he is entitled to benefits under the LTD Policy. … Waller reported he did not “feel qualified ... to make a diagnosis of impaired cognition, pending a more formal *1131 neuropsychologic evaluation.” Accordingly, Dr.

State v. Perez

373 Or. 591 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 1, 2025

On direct examination, defendant testified that he did not clearly remember the incident at Fred Meyer because he had been “alcoholically intoxicated.” … CONCLUSION Defendant has not established plain error in his case. To establish “plain” error, a defendant must satisfy all the requirements of plain error.

Ros v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 11, 2022

A plaintiff may also qualify for a preliminary injunction by showing that there are serious questions going to the merits of his claim and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in his … and particularly relevant to this case, a request for a mandatory injunction seeking relief well beyond the status quo is disfavored and shall not be granted unless the facts and law clearly

Witham v. Witham

156 Or. 59 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1937

Witham was named as executrix therein and letters testamentary were issued to her and she duly qualified as such executrix. … The intention of the testator to incorporate into a will a paper or document must clearly appear from the will, a mere reference thereto without evidence of such intention being insufficient.

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

Bass

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 16, 2026

It is the plaintiff’s burden to establish both these and the third step. Id. … Qualified Immunity Because plaintiff’s First Amendment rights were not violated, the individual defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity.

Rankin v. Landers

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 21, 2021

Hayes, 849 F.3d at 1211; see also Marquez, 12 F.3d 1107 (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a qualified immunity defense where the plaintiff alleged prison officials searched his cell and “carefully read the contents … He does not however establish that the documents were properly marked as “confidential legal mail” or were marked as correspondence with an attorney. Hayes, 849 F.3d at1212; Mangiaracina, 849 F.3d at 1198.

Buccina v. Department of Revenue

17 Or. Tax 456 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 25, 2003

In order for taxpayers to succeed in their claim they must establish Oregon as June’s tax home. … OAR 150-316.027(l)(a) (1998). 3 June clearly abandoned California as her domicile when she retired and moved to her new home in Oregon.

Schwartz v. Washington County

Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 2024

“The analytical process for determining whether state law preempts a local law in Oregon is well established.” Owen v. City of Portland, 368 Or 661, 667, 497 P3d 1216 (2021). … Washington County a particular field, it knows how clearly to do so.” AT&T Communications v.

High Desert Wildlife v. Deschutes County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 12, 2016

“The purpose of the transfer was to establish a wildlife rehabilitation station on Mr. Aspel’s 1 This Final Decision incorporates without change the court’s Decision, entered July 25, 2016. … requires both legal and equitable title for the property owner to qualify for a tax exemption.”

Safeco Ins. v. AMERICAN HARDWARE MUT. INS.

169 Or. App. 405 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2000

set of criteria established by the director by rule." … This clearly was not contemplated by the legislature as evidenced by a clear reading of the statute.

Inkley v. Forest Fiber Products Co.

288 Or. 337 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1980

It stated: "* * * Any other interpretation would have to be based on the conclusion that the legislature intended to deny a [worker] with an occupational disease claim *348 the right clearly granted to a [worker] with an … It also puts the burden on the party best able to come forward with evidence to establish prejudice.

Rucker

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 27, 2026

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 (1996). 1 - ORDER “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that … A request for a mandatory injunction seeking relief well beyond the status quo is disfavored and shall not be granted unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party. Stanley v. Univ. of S.

State v. Roden

296 Or. App. 604 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 20, 2019

Because no one tested EW for MRSA or other infections, defendant attempted to establish her infection indirectly. … The trial court and the parties understood that ruling to apply broadly, permitting other similarly qualified doctors to testify on the matter.

Slovanian Literary & Social Ass'n v. City of Portland

111 Or. 335 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1924

This is *350 clearly shown by the masterful argument of Webster in page 572: • “That all property, of which the use may be beneficial to the public, belongs, therefore, to the public, is quite a new doctrine. … The council is not authorized to discriminate between applicants who *354 qualify under the terms of the ordinance. The case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 ( 30 L. Ed. 220 , 6 Sup. Ct.

State v. Smith

43 Or. 109 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1903

It will be observed that the word “danger” is not qualified by the word “imminent.” In United States v. Outerbridge, Fed. Cas. No. 15,978, Mr. … The statement in the third refused instruction that defendant was not required to wait until put in imminent danger is clearly erroneous.