Case law

United States v. Oregon & C. R.

57 F. 426 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Aug 21, 1893

The motive for the grant in question was Hie opening up of this hitherto inaccessible region, and the establishment of railroad connection between Portland and Astoria, the two largest towns in the state. … The supreme court says that, so far from indicating that this was not to be considered a single line, it is difficult to see how congress could have expressed more clearly by inference that they were not to be treated as

Giles v. St. Charles Health System, Inc.

294 F.R.D. 585 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 22, 2013

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186 (9th Cir. 2001). … Because plaintiffs allege the failure to pay regular and overtime wages under Or.Rev.Stat. § 653.261, for which they are seeking penalty wages, Or.Rev.Stat. § 652.150 is clearly applicable to the case at bar.

West Hills, Inc. v. State Tax Commission

255 Or. 172 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1970

This is an appeal by the State Tax Commission from a decision of the Oregon Tax Court (3 OTC Adv Sh 409), reversing in part the Commission’s order establishing the value of the taxpayer’s real property for tax purposes. … in 1963, four years before the assessment date”, consisting of a sale for $30,000 of 35 acres of undeveloped and unsubdivided property with an “access problem” and was located outside the city limits, *178 so as not to qualify

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.

Tharalson v. St. of Ore. and Dept. of Rev.

6 Or. Tax 533 · Oregon Tax Court · Oct 27, 1976

They also seek recovery of taxes paid to the State of Oregon as a result of the operation of ORS 118.095. ① Plaintiff Eric Tharalson is the trustee of the testamentary trust established by the will of Agnes E. … Plaintiffs have not alleged specifically in their complaint whether the statute violates the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Clark v. United States

109 F. Supp. 213 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 23, 1952

Above and beyond this, claimants marshal a series of facts to establish a duty. … If it -be postulated that these obligations were' thus assumed, the nature, character and extent of the obligations must be clearly outlined.

Adeyinka

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 10, 2026

STANDARDS Congress established that when a complaint is filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that” … The warning that Defendants provided to Plaintiff clearly stated that, if Plaintiff’s trailer was “not completely removed from the public right of way,” it would be towed. ECF 7-1 at 2; ECF 23-1 at 2.

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.

Carlson v. Myers

327 Or. 213 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1998

Former ORS 250.035(2) was clearly conditional, and this court interpreted it accordingly. In Rooney v. … This case illustrates clearly that the Attorney General and this court cannot always satisfy the competing policies in ORS 250.035 and ORS 250.085(5), as those statutes currently are written.

Derenco, Inc. v. Benj. Franklin Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

281 Or. 533 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1978

In addition, Congress had exempted the plaintiff from having to qualify to do business in any state and had given it state taxation immunity. 10 The court stated that payment of interest on the accounts did not impose a burden … However, the deposits in question here were not established for the convenience of the depositor, as is the usual case, but were established at the insistence of defendant for its protection and for a purpose which had nothing

League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Forsgren

163 F. Supp. 2d 1222 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 7, 2001

Plaintiffs argue that the administrative record clearly establishes that B.t.k. is a pesticide that is harmful to all butterflies and other Lepidoptera; that exposure to B.t.k. will kill most species of moths and butterflies … Defendants argue that rather than downplaying any negative information on potential human health effects, as plaintiffs contend, a review of the EIS establishes that it clearly evaluates and discloses it.

Hardy v. State Land Board

274 Or. App. 262 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 14, 2015

The state’s general thesis is that the phrasing “useful in establishing the exact location of the state claim,” read in context and in light of the statute’s legislative history, establishes that the legislature intended … The second sentence of the statute qualifies that requirement further, providing that, although the description need not use “legal terms,” it must, “by the use of common descriptions or maps *** be designed to identify *

State v. Huntley

302 Or. 418 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1986

These acts certainly qualify as dangerous behavior. In this case the crime of sodomy in the first degree was committed against an 11-year-old female victim, defendant’s niece. … Well, first of all, I think I have clearly indicated to you my feeling that you are dangerous, you are shown to be dangerous by your conduct.”

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.

Middlekauff v. Galloway

163 Or. 671 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1939

The opinion in that case was concerned only with the intention of the legislature found in the law as originally enacted, and cannot now be invoked as authority to override a different intention clearly manifested. … “Domicile in itself establishes a basis for taxation.” New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, supra; Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, supra; Maguire v. Trefry, supra; Ross v. McCabe, 166 Tenn. 314 , 61 S. W. (2d) 479 .

Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. City of Gresham

Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 2016

The utilities in this case all were operating without franchises, and the challenged fee qualified as a privilege tax. … Pursuant to those enactments, the city established a license fee of seven percent.

Mitchell v. Transamerica Commercial Finance Corp. (In Re Doughty's Appliance, Inc.)

236 B.R. 407 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Jul 22, 1999

The disputes in this ease focus on whether the concerned customers of Doughty’s qualify as buyers in the ordinary course of business. b. Buyer in the Ordinary Course. … Based on that premise, Transamerica and Amana further argue that the Doughty’s customers concerned in this proceeding either have not established or cannot establish that the requirements of § 2-502 have been met to allow

State v. Heise-Fay

274 Or. App. 196 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 7, 2015

Myers also testified in more ambiguous terms that he “told her emphatically that I had no intentions of taking her into custody” without mentioning the qualifier that she be “honest and cooperative.” … She clearly was making a conscious decision how and when to cooperate with officers, presumably based upon what she believed was to her best benefit.

Britton v. Board of Podiatry Examiners

53 Or. App. 544 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 24, 1981

. *551 ORS 682.110 provides: "The board, after due hearing, may refuse to grant or reregister and may suspend or revoke any license issued under this chapter to a person, otherwise qualified, who: "(1) Obtained such license … Where, however, gross negligence is sought to be established by recurrent negligent acts or omissions, the standard becomes virtually identical to "repeated negligence.”

Walker Macy LLC v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

243 F. Supp. 3d 1156 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 2017

“When interpreting a statute, the court begins with the statutory text and interprets statutory terms in accordance with their ordinary meaning, unless the statute clearly expresses an intention to the contrary.” … Labor unions .were concerned about the H-l classification not having any requirement for determining the availability of qualified U.S. workers.