Case law

Morse v. Oregon Division of State Lands

34 Or. App. 853 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 1978

ORS 541.605 through 541.665 establishes procedures for the administration of the fill and removal permit program. … Such title included a full fee simple interest, historically called jus privatum, which was qualified by a public trust or jus publicum.

G.R. ex rel. Russell v. Dallas School District No. 2

823 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 4, 2011

The parents established that the District failed to provide Prior Written Notice of the IEP team meeting on October 10, 2008. … The District’s counsel is clearly a person within this provision and is entitled to the disclosure. Subsection (2) also requires the designee to maintain the confidentiality of these materials.

State v. Willson

113 Or. 450 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1925

In the instant case no qualified witness had ever seen what could be called a foetus, and no one has said anywhere in the testimony that the child of which the woman was alleged to be pregnant is dead. … It is clearly not admissible on the theory that if a person will commit one offense, he will commit another.

Graziano v. City Council of Canby

35 Or. App. 271 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 18, 1978

Appointed officers shall hold their office during the pleasure of the Council or until their successors are appointed and qualified. … On the interpretation of the charter, I am not quite satisfied that the majority clearly states my view.

State Ex Rel. Fox v. Hicks

69 Or. App. 348 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 8, 1984

. * * * Further, because of its recognized capacity to definitively exclude a high percentage of falsely accused putative fathers, the availability of scientific blood test evidence clearly would be a valuable procedural … In Oregon, the state notes, the proponent of paternity has the burden of establishing the allegation, and there is no burden placed on the putative father to disprove paternity.

Schmidt v. Archdiocese of Portland

218 Or. App. 661 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 19, 2008

In Chaffin , the court held: *701 “[A]n act by a parent, whether described as willful or malicious or wanton, which will pierce the veil of parental immunity, is an act which is done with an intention to injure the child … See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 341 Or at 398 (referring to Black’s Law Dictionary to determine the well-established legal meaning of the term “service”).

Bingham v. Oregon School Activities Ass'n

24 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 22, 1998

A MDT 1 meeting was held and determined Adam does qualify for and will receive special education services during the 1998-1998 school year. … At the hearing, plaintiff established that the requested modification is reasonable in the general sense.

School District 47 v. United States National Bank

187 Or. 360 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1949

It is therein further alleged that since the establishment of the St. … No such power ought to exist, and in our opinion no such power does legally exist, unless conferred by legislative enactment, either express or clearly implied. ’’ Since the word “warrant” has a definite and well-defined

Doe v. Medford School District 549C

232 Or. App. 38 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 18, 2009

term to mean “[t]o establish by law; to perform or effect; to decree”). … Although a working firearm certainly qualifies as a dangerous or deadly weapon, it does not necessarily follow that a dangerous or deadly weapon is a firearm.

Olsen v. Gonzales

350 B.R. 906 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 11, 2006

Clearly, section 527 implicates the professional’s First Amendment rights not to speak. See Wooley v. … McBride specifically challenges the requirement to clearly and conspicuously use the statement “ We are a debt relief agency.

State v. Hickman/Hickman

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 ‘per- sonal 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

Crooker v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 26, 2021

After the initial interview process, all fifteen candidates were ranked as equally qualified. Id. at ¶¶ 42, 81-82. … See City of Newport, 453 U.S. at 271 (“[W]e hold that a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”).

State v. Weston

102 Or. 102 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1921

While it is generally defined as the body of a crime, it is more clearly expressed by calling it the body or thing which is the victim of a wrong. … But this is qualified and limited by the rule that the defendant’s confession taken alone, and without corroborating proof of the corpus delicti, is not sufficient to support a conviction: State v.

Fechtig v. City of Albany

150 Or. App. 10 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 17, 1997

LUBA concluded that the local interpretation was not “clearly wrong” and, accordingly, could not be reversed consistently with Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508 , 836 P2d 710 (1992). … Among other *25 things, it was the Act that established LUBA as a permanent body, after the two previous legislatures had provided for its temporary or “sunsetted” existence.

Wiggins v. Barrett & Associates, Inc.

295 Or. 679 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1983

One. of those promises was clearly within the statute but was not the promise sought to be enforced. … We have stated the elements necessary to establish apparent authority in Jones v.

Siring v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education ex rel. Eastern Oregon University

927 F. Supp. 2d 1030 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 29, 2012

Notwithstanding the University’s attempt to characterize her performance as unsatisfactory, Siring has set forth sufficient evidence to establish that at the time of the adverse employment action in May 2010, she was qualified … In order to prevail on an ADA claim, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that she: (1) has or is perceived as having a disability; (2) is a qualified individual; and (3) was unlawfully

Canell v. Multnomah County

141 F. Supp. 2d 1046 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 26, 2001

Moreover, the undisputed facts of record clearly demonstrate that lock-boxes are not permitted at MCDC due to legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons related solely to safety and security. … Lastly, plaintiff has failed to establish any harm or injury from the transfer he complains of.

State v. Lowry

295 Or. 337 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1983

Under Florance and Robinson/Gustafson, the seizure of such items would also clearly be lawful. … The United States Supreme Court has summarized very clearly in Arkansas v.

Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'n v. Pirie

150 Or. 435 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1935

These are cases where the rule is not qualified. … “Its ineffectiveness to encourage competitive bidding in these times of stress is clearly demonstrated by the record of sheriff’s sales on May 2d, above stated.

Maxwell v. Lane County

178 Or. App. 210 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 28, 2001

Finally, as a factual matter, there is a road bisecting tax lot 905 that was not vacated by the establishment of another road. … In accomplishing those purposes, the order merely uses the term “parcel” without defining or qualifying it in any way.