Case law

American Timber & Trading Co. v. Niedermeyer

276 Or. 1135 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1976

The court further found that Ben’s defenses of estoppel, waiver, ratification and laches had not been established by the evidence. … The trial court found that Ben had not established any basis for these defenses, and we agree with this conclusion.

Litton Systems, Inc. v. Josephine County Assessor

17 Or. Tax 178 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 3, 2002

The court’s review is confined to the question of “whether the officer exercised his discretion judiciously and not capriciously and arrived at no conclusion which was clearly wrong.” Pratum Co-Op Whse. v. … Such pragmatics, while perhaps understandable and even reasonable, go beyond the limits of the department’s own rule by effectively qualifying the word “will.”

FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Sierra Media, Inc.

965 F. Supp. 2d 1184 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 8, 2013

Clearly FLIR did not knowingly engage in conduct that it believed constituted trademark infringement. … Throughout the course of the litigation, Fluke has represented and the evidence *1212 has clearly established that IR Fusion “signifies a feature that enables a handheld thermal imager equipped with a digital camera to overlay

State v. Cloutier

351 Or. 68 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 22, 2011

According to the state, defendant 5 fails to identify any quantitative limit established by any law that the fine exceeds in this 6 case. … jurisdiction 15 over that kind of problem, because that problem is constitutional" given that the Chair's 16 hypothetical implicated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 17 the privileges and immunities

State v. Bartol

368 Or. 598 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 7, 2021

Specifically, premeditated and inten- tional killing of two or more individuals carrying out a ter- rorist act would be a qualifier. … With the issue clearly presented, the legislature passed SB 1013.

Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. Tidwell

716 F. Supp. 2d 982 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 4, 2010

According to this definition, as holders of grazing permits that later became subject to reinitiated consultation, permittees would qualify as applicants. … However, the ESA does not clearly state when and how applicants may participate in formal consultation. Section 7(a)(3) of the ESA provides for applicant involvement during the early consultation process.

Finicum v. United States of America

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 5, 2021

One court concluded that these cases may qualify as misnomers. See Korbe v. Hilton Hotels Corp., Civil No. 08-1309-PK, 2009 WL 723348, at *2—3 (D. Or. Mar. 13, 2009). … Judge Sullivan recommends dismissing the conspiracy claims “with leave to amend so that Plaintiffs can more clearly state their conspiracy claim as to the State Defendants.” F. & R. [ECF 161] at 47.

Schwartz v. Washington County

Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 2024

“The analytical process for determining whether state law preempts a local law in Oregon is well established.” Owen v. City of Portland, 368 Or 661, 667, 497 P3d 1216 (2021). … Washington County a particular field, it knows how clearly to do so.” AT&T Communications v.

Skedco, Inc. v. Strategic Operations, Inc.

287 F. Supp. 3d 1100 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 12, 2018

Stevick's report which is clearly delineated as a rebuttal to Dr. Guentzler's report)[.] Based on the Court's reading of this portion of Dr. Stevick's report, Dr. … First, the witness is qualified if he or she has expertise in the precise pertinent art at issue.

Benson v. Gladden

242 Or. 132 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1965

of the post-conviction act, ORS 138.530, under which petitioner seeks relief, are: “(1) Post-conviction relief pursuant to ORS 138.510 to 138.680 shall be granted by the court when one or more of the following grounds is established … OCEANLAKE BRANCH LINCOLN BANK OF TAFT, OREGON OCEANLAKE, OREGON *145 The two lines under the name of the maker-corporation, prefaced with the word “BY” in capitals, clearly indicated a need for the signature of two agents

American Apparel & Footwear Association, Inc. v. Schroeder

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 22, 2022

The preemption doctrine is derived from the Supremacy Clause and “any state law, however clearly within a State’s acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.” Gade v. … Thus, state sovereign immunity would not bar the relief Plaintiffs seek under Plaintiffs’ first and third counts.

EAN Holdings, LLC v. Dept. of Rev.

24 Or. Tax 200 · Oregon Tax Court · Aug 12, 2020

Taxpayer argues that these references support its position because taxpayer buys vehicles in quantities that clearly are large (2,717 vehicles in a single calendar quarter). … Cite as 24 OTR 200 (2020) 211 who qualify without having to make such minimum pur- chases, including farmers, government emergency service providers, and certain other

State v. Martin

226 Or. App. 199 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 25, 2009

Defendant reiterated that, because Reilly had clearly testified that she had based her diagnosis on the victim’s history, he was entitled to cross-examine Reilly about her awareness and consideration of the victim’s previous … If it is offered in some other form, the trial court then determines whether the evidence qualifies for admission under one of the exceptions in OEC 412(2)(b); if it does not, again, the trial court must deny admission.

State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Gohranson

143 Or. App. 36 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 28, 1996

We also conclude that the record here clearly and convincingly establishes that integration into father’s home in the foreseeable future is highly unlikely. … The court held irrelevant the testimony of a man who claimed to have had sexual intercourse with father when the man was a minor and excluded statements made by Roby to a physician because the statements did not qualify as

Moulton v. Huckleberry

150 Or. 538 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 29, 1935

Also another limitation of the broad rule stated is found in cases that hold that a qualified physician is not liable for an error of judgment if *547 he applies ordinary and reasonable skill and care: 48 C. … The testimony tended to clearly show that when Dr. Huckleberry was about to leave for Chicago he employed Dr. Shininger to do his work for him for a regular compensation of $5 per day, and that Dr.

Shipman v. Gladden

253 Or. 192 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1969

See 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d at 805 . *924 The right to counsel in the trial court established in Powell v. Alabama and Gideon v. … The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, so far as applicable, reads as follows: "* * * No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides v. Lyng

673 F. Supp. 1019 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 24, 1987

I cannot say that one set of experts is clearly more correct than the other; I am not expected to referee an academic dispute. … I have reviewed the Fourth Narrative Statement of Mary O’Brien (July 27, 1987) and I find her qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training and education.

Whitley v. City of Portland

654 F. Supp. 2d 1194 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 12, 2009

On January 18, 2006, Whitley failed to shoot qualifying scores on day three of handgun firearms training. (Babnick Aff. Ex. 7.) … But, in 2002, the Ninth Circuit clearly held that an employer’s reliance on its subjective belief is not pretextual.

State v. Powell

352 Or. 210 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 19, 2012

The court noted that the pre-existing 13 common-law rule on the subject clearly applied to inducements of both advantage and 14 harm. Id. at 163-64. … The state need only establish that the police recited the warnings 3 completely and coherently.").

FREIGHTLINER, LLC v. Teamsters Local 305

336 F. Supp. 2d 1118 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 15, 2004

Under Ninth Circuit case law, the arbitrator is deemed not to have been construing or applying the CBA if his interpretation fails to qualify as a “plausible interpretation of the contract.” … this case fits neatly under the cases holding that arbitrators dispensed their own brand of industrial justice in ordering reinstatement of employees who had used or possessed marijuana, despite CBA drug-policy provisions clearly