Case law

Berger Farms v. First Interstate Bank

148 Or. App. 33 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 7, 1997

Casey, 487 US 131, 138 , 108 S Ct 2302 , 101 L Ed 2d 123 (1988) (recognizing that states may establish procedural rules governing litigation in their own courts). … Inclusion of the phrase “district court” in section 4, and omission of that same qualifying language in section 3, indicates that Congress intended section 3 to apply in state courts. See Russello v.

Columbia Riverkeeper v. Caswell, Jr.

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 7, 2025

As such, the Levee and Refinery Harms do not "lie at the end of a highly attenuated chain of possibilities but [are] rather a credible threat that qualifies as an actual and imminent harm." … First, if a taking occurred, the opinion "carrie[d] with it the assurance of immunity[,]" and the absence of such opinion "raise[d] the potential of liability[.]" Id.

Fischer v. Bayer

108 Or. 311 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1922

Upon the hearing on appeal, it was decided that the evidence introduced by plaintiff wholly failed to establish liability on the part of J. C. … Clearly, the judgment which this court directed should be entered against Keep was in effect an affirmance of the judgment of the lower court as to Keep.

Rose City Transit Co. v. City of Portland

18 Or. App. 369 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 19, 1974

The use of the franchise provisions to govern the valuation is clearly a benefit to the City. … The statements made by the Companies in their brief clearly support the conclusion that they assumed the risk that the franchise would be terminated.

Pereida-Alba v. Coursey

356 Or. 654 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2015

Rather, the post-conviction court ruled in its letter opinion that “no reasonably qualified defense attorney would have made the choice complained about in the post-conviction proceeding.” … The court explained that, “[i]f the store employees are to be believed, there was clearly a Robbery I. If the peti- tioner in this case is believed there was at most a Robbery III and maybe only a Theft.”

Kelsey v. Cain

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 20, 2020

Gulick and Hemphill were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs and, further, are entitled to qualified immunity. … Gulick and Hemphill are entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff’s claim against Superintendent Cain fails because no reasonable juror could find that Mr.

State v. Espinosa

180 Or. App. 470 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 10, 2002

A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.” *478 To establish … legislative commentary to OEC 804(3)(c) recognized that: “ ‘A statement admitting guilt and implicating another person, made while in custody, may well spring from a desire to curry favor with the authorities and hence fail to qualify

Clegg v. Premo

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 20, 2024

Moreover, Petitioner cites no clearly established federal law holding that a presumption of prejudice arises from an inadvertent sighting of a shackled defendant outside of the courtroom. … The PCR court’s decision did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law and is entitled to deference.

Snyder v. Amsberry

306 Or. App. 439 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 2020

Clearly, petitioner and petitioner’s counsel have not provided this simple sub- stitute for actual support from an expert witness. “* * * * * “A court could not make a determination of mental illness that would … Whether those principles require the use of expert testimony to establish prejudice in a claim for ineffective counsel arising from a failure to investigate a mental health defense is an open question, and one we need not

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. State

339 Or. 554 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 2005

establishes discrimination in practical effect. … Ct 1153 , 55 L Ed 2d 403 , (1978), the Court used the test — substituting the phrase “state *566 function” for "interstate commerce” — to hold that a federal registration tax on civil aircraft did not violate the implied immunity

Index Newspapers LLC v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 2, 2020

Further, “the Supreme Court has long recognized a qualified right of access for the press and public to observe government activities.” Jd. at 898. … Superior Court (“Press-Enterprise IT’), PAGE 6 — TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 478 U.S. 1 (1986), the Supreme Court established a two-part test for right of access claims.

Nygaard v. United Parcel Service General Services Co.

1 F. Supp. 2d 1173 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 3, 1998

Thus, as a manufacturer, § 411.340 clearly does not apply to Toppan Moore. The record indicates that Inforite did not manufacture the DIAD and that the product was never in the possession of Inforite. … In those cases, both employers receive the benefit of workers’ compensation immunity for employers.

State Ex Rel. Huddleston v. Sawyer

324 Or. 597 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1997

Equal Privileges and Immunities Article I, section 20, provides: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or *1153 immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to … ORS 137.700 establishes minimum prison sentences for 18 felonies.

Pinski

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 24, 2026

Mot. 28, and Defendants move for summary judgment as to all remaining claims and have asserted a defense of qualified immunity as to Bowers and Krause. … Because Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the substance of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the individual Defendants, the Court need not reach the question of qualified immunity.

Marrazzo v. Leavitt

719 F. Supp. 2d 1297 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 21, 2010

Bank and Trust Co., 993 F.2d 132, 136 (7th Cir.1993) (“To qualify as adverse, the action must be “more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or alteration of job responsibilities. … In addition, the denials of Marrazzo’s requests to work in an outside setting and the charge of three hours twenty minutes’ unexcused absence clearly had no material impact upon the terms and conditions of Marrazzo’s employment

State v. Ovalle

325 Or. App. 538 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 2023

He assigns error to the trial judge’s denial of his ORS 14.210(1)(c) motion to dis- qualify judge for specific cause—consanguinity within three degrees of kinship to an attorney in the office of the district attorney. … in making the decision that is subject to review.” 3 ORS 14.250 provides, as relevant, that: “No judge of a circuit court shall sit to hear or try any suit, action, matter or proceeding when it is established

Johnson v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 13, 2024

At all times, the most qualified person must be selected for the position, without regard to race, gender or any other protected category.” … And “The goal of any affirmative action plan should be achievement of genuine equal employment opportunity for all qualified persons.

State v. Compton

333 Or. 274 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 7, 2002

Therefore, he argues, the statute violates Article I, sections 20 (equal privileges and immunities) and 21 (prohibiting ex post facto laws), of the Oregon Constitution, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United … “What we know pretty clearly is there was a violent blow at least to her back and perhaps a violent blow to her abdomen that caused internal bleeding.

DAVIS WINE COMPANY v. Vina Y Bodega Estampa, SA

823 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 13, 2011

In Calkins it was stated that: The law never contemplated that persons engaged in business as partners may incorporate with intent to obtain the advantages and immunities of corporate form, and then, Proteus like, become … Clearly Cesar Bistue intended for the Agreement not to reference DWC because he wanted to avoid the necessity of a name change.

State ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Delta Inn, Inc.

168 Or. App. 50 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 31, 2000

At a hearing considering Delta’s objections to ODOT’s proposed final judgment and cost bill, the trial court observed: “[I]n any normal understanding of the word, the State clearly won the case. … See ORCP 45 D (“Any matter admitted pursuant to this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.”).