Case law

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.

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

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.

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

Stanfield v. Arnwine

102 Or. 289 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1921

The addition of the qualifying words, ‘about,’ ‘more or less,’ and the like, in such cases, is only for the purpose of providing against accidental variations arising from' slight and unimportant excesses or deficiences in … This would have been a self-serving declaration and clearly inadmissible as such.

State v. Somfleth

168 Or. App. 414 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 21, 2000

Defendant’s memorandum in support of suppression and related oral argument clearly challenged the legality of the officers’ initial entry onto the property. … Glines, 134 Or App 21 , 894 P2d 516 , rev den 321 Or 512 (1995), as exemplifying a more qualified, circumstantial approach to “implied consent.”

State Ex Rel. Roberts v. Public Finance Co.

294 Or. 713 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1983

The point that the state ignores is that the principal contract was a contract for employment at will, which was terminable by either party at any time for almost any reason. [3] The terms of this vacation contract are qualified … And that "vacation entitlement is established on the employee's anniversary date * * *."

State v. Castilleja

215 Or. App. 235 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 26, 2007

Because as I read the affidavit as a whole, I think that she was clearly upset about what she thought was going on. “She was clearly mistaken in at least one regard, and that was with respect to Ms. … In that light, the trial court was clearly wrong when it opined that the affidavit was defective because it failed to demonstrate Loewen’s basis of knowledge.

Sterling Savings Bank v. Emerald Development Co.

266 Or. App. 312 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 2014

Cir 1916), was focused on the purchase of a judgment by the agent of one of several joint tortfeasors: “If, however, the judgment was thus in fact bought by * * * one of the joint tort feasors and judgment debtors, this clearly … We also note that even the authority from which Jackman derives the general rule calling for merger of a judgment assigned to one of several joint defendants qualifies its application in the case of contrary intent: “In 49

State v. Zielinski

287 Or. App. 770 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 20, 2017

Those phrases and that type of presentation by the expert witnesses would undercut the objective component which these cases clearly establish in Oregon law. … However, the commission also recognized “a need for establishing a standard to fix an average conduct to protect the general welfare.” Id.

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.”).

Behringer v. City of Ashland

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 4, 2024

Irreparable Harm A plaintiff seeking an injunction must “must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible.” … immunity.

Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County

326 Or. App. 439 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 2023

As LUBA noted, based on the context of the DCC including DCC 22.36.025 and DCC 22.36.010(C)(1)(b), which contains a time limit for sub- mitting an application to extend a CUP, “[t]he county clearly knows how to insert a time … It could only be exercised within the contours established by the county code, and under that code, by the “precise question” submit- ted by Gemmet.

Gilbride v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 11, 2023

Father’s attorney proposed a “qualified and respected” evaluator who had conducted over 140 such 570 Gilbride v. … Sewell, 257 Or App 462, 469, 307 P3d 464, rev den, 354 Or 389 (2013) (“An abuse of discretion occurs when a court exercises its discretion to an end not justified by, and clearly against, evidence and rea- son.”

Parks v. BOARD OF CTY. COM'RS OF TILLAMOOK CTY.

11 Or. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 18, 1972

Like the property owners involved in the above two cases, intervenor in tills case no longer owns lots that qualify for the substandard lot exception. … Eespondenfs duties to properly administer those statutes and their zoning ordinance are clearly public in nature.

State v. Tourtillott

289 Or. 835 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1980

According to the trial judge, the roadblock was established "on one of the most rural highways *425 in the whole state of Oregon." … The checkpoint was established on the first weekend of hunting season.

Greenfield v. Central Labor Council

104 Or. 236 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1920

Broad generalizations, however, *271 are easily framed, because, if we just keep in mind the prevalence in the statute of the qualifying idea of ‘peaceful’ and ‘lawful’ action, we cannot be misled. * * “Again, the right of … A picket was established about the plant. Picketing was carried on for about four weeks without cessation, by three or four groups of picketers, each group consisting of four to twelve persons.

Case v. Chambers

210 Or. 680 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1957

insert the word “or” between “merchandise” and “stock in trade,” rather than either a comma or the word “and” because use of a conjunction would require that the goods be both “merchandise” and “stock in trade” in order to qualify … The burden then remains on the taxing authorities to establish the undervaluation by proving “true cash value.”

Tripp and Saunders v. Renhard

184 Or. 622 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1948

Thus, it is seen that the respondents depend much upon the sheets to establish the terms of the contract. We shall presently return to the sheets. … Winston: I will further qualify them. “The Court: (examining documents) You will have to connect them up further before you can offer them. “Q. Mr.

Lowe v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

207 Or. App. 532 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 6, 2006

See, e.g., Humphers, 298 Or at 717 n 14 (“Granted that at times a court must decide a new point of law that necessarily will establish either a right in the plaintiff or a privilege or immunity in the defendant, at least … In both of those categories of cases, the courts clearly have taken as the default position that present, physical harm is the sine qua non of negligence liability.