Case 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.”

Portland General Electric Co. v. State Tax Commission

249 Or. 239 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1968

Arizona Tax Comm’n, 380 US 685 , 85 S Ct 1242 , 14 LEd2d 165 (1965), in support of its contention that its interest in both the lands of the United States and the tribal lands is immune from taxation. … The commission’s reason for increasing the value of PGE’s interest in the United States lands from $10 to $60 does not clearly appear from the record. *255 ⑭ The reason assigned for the increase by the commission is not controlling

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

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

MacHado-miller v. Mersereau & Shannon, LLP

180 Or. App. 586 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 10, 2002

Although each contains a general prohibition qualified by exceptions, those exceptions are so different in scope and quantity in each state as to render the overall laws quite different from each other. … The section clearly and directly both states and embodies a policy of limiting the scope of permissible contracts in order to maximize competition and minimize restraints on trade.

State v. Rodriguez

217 Or. App. 24 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 19, 2007

Where one construction of a statute is likely, given its text and context, and another is merely plausible, the likely meaning should be preferred by a court unless the legislative history of the statute clearly shows that … Admittedly, it would have been cleaner had the legislature also imposed the sanction for those four or greater in number DUII conviction offenders who do not qualify as felony offenders.

Lipscomb v. State Bd. of Higher Ed.

305 Or. 472 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1988

Paulus, 297 Or 646 , 688 P2d 367 (1984) (reviewing method of qualifying signatures on initiative petitions). … The lead paragraph is clearly in error; that veto power had been enjoyed by the Governor since a 1916 constitutional amendment.

State v. Evensen

298 Or. App. 294 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 26, 2019

Defendant posits that the homeowner's exception thus ensures that "a 'subscriber or member of their family' is immune to prosecution for listening in or overhearing conversations on open phone lines or radio transmissions … The state observes that the legislature clearly intended the term to have that meaning when it adopted the 1955 legislation, before it added the paragraph (c) prohibition against obtaining face-to-face communications.

Craswell v. Biggs

160 Or. 547 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1938

of the mere justification in order to bind the surety. *564 In the instant case the agreement declared upon by the plaintiffs was a regular agreement to .answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another and comes clearly … contract to do this work was between the plaintiffs and Biggs and Hallyburton, and before any part-performance can take the matter out of the statute of frauds, it must be shown that the oral agreement was made by a person qualified

Sweat v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 29, 2023

A position that was not contrary to clearly established law is thus substantially justified.” Meza-Vazquesz v. Garland, 993 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2021) (simplified). … And there is no basis to conclude that these results qualified as significant probative evidence that the ALJ was required specifically to address. Kilpatrick’s attorney, Mr.

State v. Menefee

268 Or. App. 154 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 31, 2014

constitutional rights or any other rights at any time. *161 “I’m a natural born American citizen as a common man of the sovereign people arising under the original jurisdiction of the de jure constitution of 1789 as amended by the qualified … I think *170 the record from yesterday and previously his own statements on the record are more than sufficient to establish that he is waiving his right to be present.”

McLean v. Buck Medical Services, Inc.

334 Or. 17 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2002

Relying on the common usage of the terms "person" and "personal," plaintiff contends that term "contract for personal service" clearly pertains to contracts for the services of a particular individual. … We agree with the Court of Appeals' assessment that ambulance service qualifies as an "other human service[]."

Lee v. Lampert

607 F. Supp. 2d 1204 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 24, 2009

Respondent argues that Lee’s petition was not filed in time and therefore is proeedurally barred, and he does not qualify under the “actually innocent” gateway recognized in Schlup v. … Certain rulings also were contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. A.

O.M. v. National Women's Soccer League, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 17, 2021

To obtain a mandatory injunction, a plaintiff must “establish that the law and facts clearly favor her position, not simply that she is likely to succeed.” Id. (emphasis in original). … The Law and the Facts Clearly Favor Plaintiff’s Position Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s Age Rule violates § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. ECF 1 at ¶ 3.

White v. Reyes

335 Or. App. 124 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 18, 2024

Nooth, 257 Or App 704, 712, 308 P3d 225, rev den, 354 Or 491 (2013) (concluding “that plaintiff failed to establish a 140 White v. … Reyes prescribed” and “to make no further changes to Petitioner’s medications until [an] examination and review of [the] drug regimen by a qualified [p]hysiatrist.”

Hermann v. Clark

108 Or. 457 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1923

In this case, the complaint avers that the defendant agreed in writing on behalf of and as agent of said owners of said property, clearly indicating that the contract was made as by an agent in the name of a principal, avowedly … Here, however, the terms of the contract calling for a net price, qualifies the implied warranty mentioned to the extent that at least so far as the encumbi*ances known to the plaintiff here are concerned, they are not to

JARVIS ET UX v. Indemnity Ins. Co.

227 Or. 508 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1961

The pleadings clearly took the case out of the coverage of the defendant's insurance policy. 9. … The nature of the connection which a person must have with a party to the prior action before he qualifies as his privy is not entirely clear.

State v. Sell

328 Or. App. 82 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 13, 2023

“Even if an error does not qualify as harmless, our assessment of where it falls on the spectrum of likelihood of having affected the verdict can be an import- ant consideration to the exercise of discretion. … The statute defines “resist” as “the use or threatened use of violence, physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physi- cal injury to any person and includes, but is not limited to, behavior clearly

McCalla v. Bane

45 F. 828 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Apr 20, 1891

It qualifies its operation in the case of such children whose parents were “formally” married and lived together as husband and wife. The court also said in State v. … This construction of the constitution of the state is binding on this court, and, tried by it, this act, in my judgment, is clearly valid.