Case law

In Re the Marriage of Winczewski

188 Or. App. 667 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 16, 2003

She clearly had become more controlling and domineering, but that had been a trait off and on that we had worked on in therapy. … Most importantly, in our recent custody cases in which we interpreted ORS 109.119 (1997) to salvage its constitutionality, we established that the Hruby standard provides guidance in determining whether a nonparent has established

Bowles v. Barde Steel Co.

177 Or. 421 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1945

Clearly the ordinary jurisdiction of the circuit court of Oregon is adequate for the trial of the cases at bar. … Clearly the state court had jurisdiction in all five cases.

Moore Mill & Lumber Co. v. Foster

216 Or. 204 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1959

Upon cross examination Valentine answered that he was not qualified to determine whether the center of section 26 was “the focal point” of the haul for the entire 100,000,000 feet. … In the absence of any evidence whatever showing that the county would improve the Sixes River road or authorize a user to do so, the rulings which sustained the plaintiff’s objections to Gibson’s testimony were clearly justified

Hoy v. Yamhill County

107 F. Supp. 3d 1078 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 8, 2015

Defendants move for summary judgment on this first count on multiple bases, including statute of limitations, waiver, qualified immunity, and that, even after construing all evidence in Hoy’s favor, his claim fails as a matter … ,] establish!,] and enforce proper procedures and practices under Oregon law....” Id. at ¶ 74a.

Mossberg v. University of Oregon

240 Or. App. 490 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 2, 2011

The University contends that plaintiff's complaint about its treatment of the Harvard equipment qualifies as a complaint that he was wronged in connection with one of the "other conditions of [his] employment" within the … Given that former faculty members do not have campus addresses and phone numbers, the rule clearly contemplates that the faculty grievance process is available only to those individuals who are employed by the University

La Pointe's, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue

4 Or. Tax 512 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 7, 1971

The statute cannot intend such a result and the department’s regulation does not clearly require it. … This substitute, in and of itself, carries no guarantee that true cash value will be established. The defendant’s Orders No.

Frosty v. Textron, Inc.

891 F. Supp. 550 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 22, 1995

Moreover, under Daubert, even the subjective opinion of a qualified engineer should be rejected if the opinion is wholly untested. See Stanczyk v. Black & Decker, 836 F.Supp. 565, 567 (N.D.Ill.1993). … Plaintiff is the duly appointed personal representative of the estate which has been established in Linn County, Oregon.

Holmes v. Holmes

12 F. Cas. 405 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Apr 12, 1870

Hunt, 2 Ohio, 502, the court says: “The rule in chancery is well established. … This qualifying clause is found as early as the seventh edition, published in 1851, while the case of Cheney v. Arnold was not decided until 1857.

Hough v. Porter

51 Or. 318 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1909

This want of substantial interference, however, was clearly established by proof to the effect that theré was no material shortage of water among those below, prior to 1895. … established.

Pacificorp Power Marketing, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

340 Or. 204 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 16, 2006

Those provisions establish that any property (including most types of intangible property) that a company uses in the performance or maintenance of an electricity business or in the sale of electricity is assessable. … The central assessment statutes clearly differentiate *217 between property that is “used” and property that is “held by a company as owner, occupant, lessee, or otherwise,” ORS 308.510(1) (2001).

Larmanger v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan

895 F. Supp. 2d 1033 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 7, 2012

During Plaintiffs first week as PCM, McGowan told Plaintiff that he did not believe she was qualified for the position and he did not support her promotion. … Chetney could have remembered so clearly an event dating back over 6 months is unexplained.

Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council

367 Or. 761 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 8, 2021

Plaintiff alleged that her memorandum to Jordan qualified as protected whistleblowing. … See, e.g., Nees, 272 Or at 219 (examining Oregon constitutional provisions and statutes and announcing that “actions by the people, the legislature, and the courts clearly indicate that the jury system and jury duty are regarded

Faverty v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oregon, Inc.

133 Or. App. 514 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 22, 1995

The facts recited in this opinion are uncontroverted unless specifically qualified in the opinion. … Clearly, defendant was making a policy argument under common law theory that employers should not be considered negligent under these circumstances.

State v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2023

The trial court denied the MJOA, conclud- ing that the evidence was sufficient to establish the elements of each offense. … As discussed above, a qualifying threat under Rangel must “instill[ ] in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker.” Rangel, 328 Or at 303.

Henderson v. Jeske

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 6, 2025

Second, it must assess whether the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)( … Oregon law governs defamation actions, which are well-established as state law claims, and the federal courts do not recognize jurisdiction over them in the absence of a valid federal question.

Roth v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

752 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 5, 2010

If such discretionary authority is clearly provided, then the denial is evaluated by an abuse of discretion standard. Abatie, 458 F.3d at 963 . … its address, and arguably providing the remedy of an appeal in the event of an adverse claims determination, neither ERISA Statement includes the required information about the terms of the Plan or its benefits so as to qualify

Deyoung

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 8, 2026

“[A] complaint cannot be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would establish the timeliness of the claim.” Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. … immunity.

State v. Le

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 19, 2023

. “* * * * * “The context within which these activities took place leave no doubt that the purpose of his physical touching does qualify as sexual contact under the statute.” … “An abuse of discretion occurs when a court exer- cises its discretion to an end not justified by, and clearly against, evidence and reason.” State v.

In Re Boulders on the River, Inc.

169 B.R. 969 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Jul 15, 1994

Clearly, an award of attorney’s fees and costs to Gentra are provided for under the Notes. … McCullen testified that he did not feel qualified to testify as an expert witness regarding the fees requested by NPPK in the Arizona proceedings. Mr.

Hamel v. Johnson

173 Or. App. 448 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 25, 2001

That discussion will also establish that we should overrule Meadows if it established the principle that the lead opinion contends that it did. It is axiomatic that administrative agencies must follow their own rules. … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor