Case law

McCall v. Legislative Assembly

291 Or. 663 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1981

The 1952 amendment of Article IV, section 6, vested original jurisdiction in this court, upon the petition of any qualified elector, to determine whether a reapportionment made by the legislature or by the Secretary of State … is true of many other areas of the state besides the old Senate District 5, some of them containing tens of thousands of residents. 8 This effect of redistricting creates no unconstitutional grant of equal privileges or immunities

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Altstatt

321 Or. 324 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1995

The facts set forth below are established by clear and convincing evidence. … DR 2-106CA) DR 2-106(A) provides that “[a] lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee.” (Emphasis added.)

Oregon Aero Inc. v. Navigators Insurance Company

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2025

"Oregon law establishes that 'a presumption will be indulged against an intention to contract for immunity from the consequence of one's own negligence.'" Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. … That presumption cannot be overcome unless the intention to contract for tort immunity "'is clearly and unequivocally expressed.'" Id. at 66 (quoting Estey v.

United States v. Carlson

946 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 24, 2013

Carlson’s knowledge of the Johnny Cash photographs was derived from confidential marital communications and that this distinction was not clearly made in the affidavits. … Mosteller, Admissibility of Fruits of Breached Evidentiary Privileges: The Importance of Adversarial Fairness, Party Culpability, and Fear of Immunity, 81 Wash.

Namba v. McCourt and Neuner

185 Or. 579 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1948

And the legislative assembly shall have power to restrain and regulate the Immigration to this state of persons not qualified to become citizens of the United States.” … Clearly, the provision just quoted sought to restrict the ownership of Oregon land to white aliens eligible to citizenship. Terrace v.

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.

State v. Longoria

17 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 1, 1974

As such, it was clearly prejudicial. I would reverse. … You made your point clearly the second day that there would be six and three.

Wahab v. Wahab

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 2, 2024

Forms of Privilege Oregon courts have recognized that “[a] statement that is otherwise defamatory is privileged if it is uttered under such circumstances that the law grants immunity … See Garson, 532 N.Y.S.2d at 780 (stating that “it has been observed that the individual asserting the defense of qualified privilege must establish that the allegedly defamatory statement was made upon an occasion furnishing

Hernandez v. Huscher

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 15, 2022

The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … immunity from damages.

Block v. DEA Properties-2 LLC

315 Or. App. 525 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 3, 2021

“To determine an easement’s purpose, we first look to the words of the easement, viewing them in the context of the entire document; if the words clearly express the easement’s purpose, our analysis ends.” Knight v. … The court held that DEA had established the exis- tence of an implied easement by clear and convincing evi- dence and entered judgment in favor of DEA on its coun- terclaim.

Northwest Textbook Depository Co. v. Department of Revenue

11 Or. Tax 280 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 14, 1989

Issue The differing views of the parties clearly delineates the issue in this case. Plaintiff maintains that its activities in Washington constitute the “sale of tangible personal property.” … However, it does affirm that if plaintiffs activities do qualify as sales of tangible personal property, its income must be apportioned to Washington.

State v. Azar

318 Or. App. 724 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 6, 2022

ORS 164.015, thus, describes the different categories of conduct that qualify as theft. … That hypothetical, the majority posits, demon- strates that the legislature clearly intended to broaden the scope of the statute to, well, fencing.

Larson v. Carpenter

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 8, 2022

First Amendment Retaliation To establish a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must plead facts showing (1) he was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity … Because the complaint does not plausibly allege a First Amendment Claim, the Court need not address defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. B.

Allen v. Thompson

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 18, 2024

Neither of these assertions change the undisputed fact that the grievance appeal response forms clearly and unequivocally informed plaintiff that he was required to correct and resubmit the grievance appeal with the proper … Alternatively, Stewart asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. Mot. Summ. J. 10, 12, ECF 43; Reply 5, ECF 59.

Nike, Inc. v. Spencer

75 Or. App. 362 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 25, 1985

In 1975, Barefoot Sports established an open credit account with BRS. The application form bears a Nike logo and the legend “BRS, Inc., 6175 S. W. 112th Avenue, Beaverton, Oregon.” … Curtis Brown Co., 260 US 516 , 43 S Ct 170 , 67 L Ed 372 (1923), clearly held that purchases and related trips, standing alone, are not a sufficient jurisdictional predicate.

Vaninetti v. Jackson County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 8, 2012

The analysis of whether farmland qualifies for special assessment, and, in turn, how qualified land may be disqualified depends on whether the farmland is “exclusive farm use zone farmland” or “nonexclusive farm use zone … The July photographs clearly show the subject property tilled and clear of grass. Defendant‟s contemporaneous photographs of the subject property show the property lying fallow.

Davis v. Con-Way Freight Inc.

139 F. Supp. 3d 1224 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 4, 2015

“To prevail on an ADA- 4 claim of unlawful ■ discharge, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by showing that: (1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the statute; (2) he is a qualified individual with … A claim brought on that basis is clearly preempted by ERISA.

Disability Rights Oregon v. Washington County

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 27, 2025

Judge Beckerman also recommended denying the motion to make more definite and certain, finding that nothing in the complaint is so indefinite as to make the nature of the claims unclear and that plaintiffs clearly intended … The County next argues that the F&R wrongly concludes that plaintiffs established but-for causation, again arguing that the F&R wrongfully conflates mental health emergencies and physical health emergencies and fails to

Wiebe v. Seely

215 Or. 331 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1959

It has not said that where another person is also liable for the tort he shall enjoy a similar partial immunity, nor is this a permissible interpretation of the language of the statute. … The ruling was clearly erroneous and prejudicial. The testimony was completely irrelevant to any question in the case. Its obvious effect was to portray Mr.

Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach (A184314)

334 Or. App. 762 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 5, 2024

The CBMC establishes setback requirements for development bordering the ocean, including the property at issue. … For example, a “retaining wall” that is less than four feet in height may qualify as a “landscape improvement” and is thus excluded from the definition of “structure.” CBMC 17.04.540.