Case law

Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

22 Or. Tax 326 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 23, 2016

Taxpayer also argues that any “contrary interpretation” by the department would be akin to “ad hoc decision-making in violation of Article I, section 20[,] of the Oregon Constitution” (Oregon’s privileges and immunities clause … Substantial nexus can be established by economic presence alone. Taxpayer’s significant economic activities in Oregon established substantial nexus with Oregon.

State v. Nelson

162 Or. 430 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1939

The court may appoint one or more disinterested qualified experts to examine the defendant with regard to his present mental condition and to testify at the hearing. … The rule is well established under the statutes of other states providing for such preliminary examinations and hearings, as shown by the authorities first cited.

Olson v. STATE MORTUARY AND CEMETERY BD.

230 Or. App. 376 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 19, 2009

Myrtle Creek is licensed to operate a funeral establishment, and Olson is its manager and part owner. … The SFGSSs that petitioners maintained for each customer were kept as a part of their record and clearly were part of the “funeral service, cemetery or crematory record” that licensees were prohibited from altering by both

Miller v. Department of Revenue

13 Or. Tax 488 · Oregon Tax Court · May 16, 1996

On appeal, the appellate court upheld the Tax Court decision as not clearly erroneous. Lesser v. U.S., 352 F2d 789, 65-2 USTC (CCH) ¶ 9743 (9th Cir 1965). … The evidence established the property was well maintained and, by being subject to the HUD agreements, would continue to be maintained.

Brabham v. PATENTA NV

614 F. Supp. 568 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 5, 1984

A reading of the statute clearly indicates that § 17(a) was not enacted for the special benefit of a succinct class of individuals but rather represents a "general censure of fraudulent practices...." Bruns v. … In addition to this basic disagreement, two courts had qualified the remedy, Dorfman v. First Boston Corp., 336 F.Supp. 1089 (E.D.Pa.1972), Greater Iowa Corp. v.

Wills v. Grasley

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 5, 2023

immunity. … See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011) (requiring that the constitutional right in question be “clearly established law” to hold a government official accountable for violating that law).

Marshall v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP

Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 28, 2023

When viewed as a list, the word “property” follows the word “person” within the stat- ute, a clearly tangible term. … by law, including but not limited to the limitations established by ORS 12.110.”

Oregon Portland Cement Co. v. Department of Revenue

8 Or. Tax 78 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 26, 1979

Wolfe’s introduction and the presentation of some testimony, counsel for defendant objected to his appearance as a witness on the ground that he was not qualified to value property for ad valorem tax purposes. … He drafted a schematic replacement plant (Def Ex A, at 36a); however, it clearly lacks the authority of that prepared by Mr. Wolfe (PI Ex 1). The witness basically followed the same approach as that used by Mr.

Gibbs v. First National Insurance Co. of America

151 Or. 241 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1935

These prices were established by a printed advertisement published by the manufacturer thereof, which recited that the price to the dealer was $87.48 and that the price to be charged by the dealer upon making a sale thereof … Clearly, the jury could not have understood the court to mean that the words “any defect in any proof of loss” had any reference to any fraudulent representation contained in the proof of *248 loss.

Health Net Life Ins. Co. v. Dept. of Rev.

24 Or. Tax 514 · Oregon Tax Court · May 3, 2021

Because Congress had clearly expressed its intention to exempt MA organizations from such a tax, the tax under ORS 317.090 is pre- empted by 42 USC section 1395w-24(g). … See 5 USC § 8909(a) (establishing fund); id. § 8906 (providing for contributions to the fund).

Bennett v. Pratt

228 Or. 474 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1961

Neill, supra. • • We accept- the rule substantially as stated in the cases cited, qualifying it.only by. giving approval also *479 to West v. … before October 15 Would be impossible; Amos Bennett also testified that defendant told him that Louden had said “he would back Paul on the plants, money to take care of the crops and so on, # * f” We find that the evidence clearly

Marshall v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP

Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 28, 2023

When viewed as a list, the word “property” follows the word “person” within the stat- ute, a clearly tangible term. … by law, including but not limited to the limitations established by ORS 12.110.”

Schwarz v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Sep 19, 2017

Certain “qualified nonpersonal use vehicles” are not subject to strict substantiation. … There is no evidence from which the court can make a reasonable estimation of Plaintiffs’ utility expenses. /// 11 “Qualified nonpersonal use vehicles” include “clearly marked police and fire vehicles

Lehman v. Bradbury

333 Or. 231 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 11, 2002

They state: “As a matter of law, a proposal to establish qualifications for officers of state government, which is a matter clearly within the power and jurisdiction of a state, is not ‘closely related’ to a proposal to establish … Article II, section 17, for example, specifies where electors must reside to qualify to vote for members of Congress, but it is silent about what qualifications members must possess or how many terms they are entitled to

Marshall v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP

Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 28, 2023

When viewed as a list, the word “property” follows the word “person” within the stat- ute, a clearly tangible term. … by law, including but not limited to the limitations established by ORS 12.110.”

Jones v. Target Corporation

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 28, 2023

P. 72(b)(2) (establishing the procedure for challenging a findings and recommendation and providing that a party may serve objections and the opposing party may serve a response to those objections, without providing that … For example, as Judge Russo describes, Plaintiff does not allege any description of the alleged sexual harassment incident to show that it was sufficiently severe to qualify as a single event hostile work environment.

In Re Moynihan

166 Or. 200 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1941

Crawford, about this particular tract of land he told me at that time, that he had the matter very clearly in mind, as he had been recently in contact with property close *204 by, and had it clearly in mind as to the location … The trial committee unanimously found that the “evidence clearly establishes that the Ostranders were not present on the occasion when the Smiths and” Mrs. Briedwell were in Mr. Moynihan’s office.

United States v. Stringer

408 F. Supp. 2d 1083 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 9, 2006

They argue that this prejudiced them because their Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to testify was removed; they lost the opportunity to seek immunity from, or to cooperate with the prosecution; they were unable … This case clearly falls within the scenario contemplated by the Supreme Court as a “violation of due process or a departure from proper standards in the administration of justice.”

Gilbertson v. Culinary Alliance & Bartenders' Union

204 Or. 326 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1955

“An author must be supposed to be consistent with himself; and, therefore, if in one *339 place he has expressed his mind clearly, it ought to be presumed that he is still of the same mind in another place, unless it clearly … In answer to the claim that the union’s conduct was protected as the exercise of the right of free speech, the court said: “It rarely has been suggested that the constitutional freedom for speech and press extends its immunity

Rose v. Patton

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 11, 2021

A serious medical “need exists if failure to treat the injury or condition ‘could result in further significant 4 In light of the Court’s holding, it does not address whether Defendants are immune from suit under … where the plaintiff alleged that the physician knew that “erratic behavior” was a side effect of the plaintiff’s medication yet discontinued the plaintiff’s low bunk restriction, and holding that the physician’s “decision qualifies