Case law

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.

State v. Roberti

298 Or. 412 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1984

. * * * The test of an opinion that purports to elucidate the rule is how clearly it tells the police under what circumstances to warn such a person before questioning. … Although the setting of the stop may be no more intrinsically coercive, it seems that the Court's qualifying words "ordinary," "typical," and "routine" exclude such stops and limit the Berkemer holding to the enforcement

Manke v. Nehalem Logging Co.

211 Or. 211 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 11, 1956

age and over 14 shall be employed in various lines of industry including manufacturing establishments, “* * * unless there is first produced and placed on file in such establishments * * * an age and school certificate, … I am not unmindful that some of the states from whence the foregoing citations come have since amended their respective Workmen’s Compensation Laws to give a qualified protection to some minors.

State v. Moore

159 Or. App. 144 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 17, 1999

Defendant first argues that, even if Olea's statements otherwise qualified as excited utterances, the admission of those statements without a showing of Olea's unavailability violated constitutional confrontation protection … The state concedes that it did not establish or attempt to establish that Olea was unavailable.

State v. Wagner

309 Or. 5 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1990

The term "this section" clearly does not refer to subsection (1)(e), which does not otherwise describe the issues or deal with their submission. … ORS 163.150(1)(d). [3] Article I, sections 20 and 21, of the Oregon Constitution provide: "Section 20. * * * No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same

Dinsdale v. Marion County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 13, 2012

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427. A “[p]reponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” … Additional testimony did not clearly address the questions raised by Howells. Id. At the suggestion of the chairperson, a subcommittee was convened to further discuss HB 2847 and suggest amendments. Id.

Hollingsworth v. Causey

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 2, 2022

A federal court may not grant habeas relief regarding any claim “adjudicated on the merits” in state court, unless the state court ruling “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … A state court decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if the state court identifies the correct legal principle but applies it in an “objectively unreasonable” manner. Woodford v.

Dietrich v. Amsberry

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 22, 2023

Rather, the state court’s application of clearly established federal law must be objectively unreasonable. … See Williams, 529 U.S. at 391 (noting that “[i]t is past question” that the rule established in Strickland is clearly established federal law determined by the Supreme Court of the United States).

Douglas v. Thompson

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2024

“Retaliation against prisoners for their exercise of this right is itself a PAGE 7 – OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART constitutional violation, and prohibited as a matter of ‘clearly established … In the prison context, the action taken must be clearly adverse to the plaintiff.

State v. Boloff

138 Or. 568 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1931

A reference to the acts and conduct which it prohibits will bring to mind more clearly the issues awaiting our attention. … There is no constitutional immunity for such conduct abhorrent to our institutions." From People v.

NORTHWEST COAL. FOR ALTERN. 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.

Chapman v. Bond (In re Bond)

548 B.R. 570 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Mar 7, 2016

“[T]he applicable state law must clearly define fiduciary duties and identify trust property.” Id. The requisite trust may be created by statute if it “[b]ear[s] the hallmarks of an express trust.” … "There is no intent or bad faith element needed to establish the claim...." Id. at *18. .

State v. Stonaker

149 Or. App. 728 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 1997

Despite these questions concerning its justification, however, the exception is well established.” 2 McCormick on Evidence, § 272, at 216 (4th ed 1992) (footnote omitted). … We note, moreover, that the factors the trial court identified are not the only factors established in this record that are material to the spontaneity-of-the-utterance requirement.

Fisher Broadcasting, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

321 Or. 341 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1995

Nothing in ORS 314.670 or the rules adopted thereunder shall preclude the Department from establishing appropriate procedures under ORS 314.655 to ORS 314.665 or under ORS 314.280 for determining the apportionment factors … :¡: *357 “The manner in which the interpretation urged by the [taxpayer] would do violence to the measuring stick set forth in the act may be more clearly seen if one takes as an example a corporation whose Oregon business

State v. Cooper

120 Or. App. 490 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 19, 1993

Defendant clearly objected to Brooks' presence in the courtroom, as well as her placement at the counsel table. … Clearly, the rule places an affirmative burden only on the party seeking an exemption under subsection (3).

Simms-Belaire v. Washington County

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 25, 2024

The Court finds that NP Harris is qualified under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. … To establish a claim under Title II of the ADA or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show: (1) [H]e is a qualified individual with a disability; (

Ahumada v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 4, 2024

Plaintiff argues that her “condition clearly meets the requirements of the Listings. … Indeed, as the Commissioner argues, “[a] generalized assertion of functional problems is not enough to establish disability at step three.” Id. (citing Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1100).

C-LAZY-K RANCH, INC. v. Alexanderson

243 Or. App. 168 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 25, 2011

Although the evidence at trial did not conclusively establish that the road that currently exists from point X to the county line sits in the exact roadbed that was surveyed in 1884, it was established to our satisfaction … Maling Road and Coon Creek Road, and to give the other terms containing the inexact qualifiers “at or near” and “more or less” effect as general locators, but not as controlling terms.

Menefee v. Washington County Jail

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 6, 2020

entity or officer or employee, if the Court determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Should plaintiff file an Amended Complaint curing the substantive deficiencies noted below, the Court advises plaintiff to clearly identify all intended defendants in the caption thereof.

Rogue Valley Stations, Inc. v. Birk Oil Co.

568 F. Supp. 337 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 15, 1983

It is qualified to do and is doing business in Oregon. Cornitius is a California corporation doing business in Oregon. From about 1972 to December 15,1980, Cornitius operated as a Shell jobber in the Medford area. … “Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” Consumer Product Safety Commission v.