Case law

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.

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.

Fresk v. Kraemer

185 Or. App. 582 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 8, 2003

Because the sum of those costs and fees plus the jury’s damages award exceeded the arbitrator’s award, the court clearly determined that plaintiff was also entitled to fees reasonably incurred in the circuit court proceedings … Under any of these scenarios, the defendant’s risk of financial loss is substantially increased and the symmetry established by ORS 20.080 is destroyed.”

Owens v. The Oregon Clinic, P.C.

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 29, 2022

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). … A routine, formal peer review process under which a health care entity evaluates, against clearly defined measures, the privilege- specific competence of all practitioners is not considered an investigation

State v. Guzek

322 Or. 245 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1995

The text and context of ORS 163.150(l)(b)(D) (1989) clearly indicate that the fourth question under that statute only permits the jury to consider mitigating evidence. The dissent reaches the opposite conclusion. … Indeed, the text of ORS 137.013, in contrast to ORS 41.415 is qualified — “[a]t the time of sentencing,” a victim has a right “reasonably to express” his or her views.

Darragh v. Bird

3 Or. 229 · Wasco County Circuit Court, Oregon · Jul 15, 1870

The mere passing in and out of a precinct, will not establish a residence— it is nothing more than an occupancy; the person for the time being simply an inhabitant. … Soon after bis arrival be declared bis intention to make this his residence — so declares it now — was in the county more than ninety days prior to the day of election, and was clearly entitled to vote.

Firestenberg v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Jul 24, 2025

Plaintiff’s claim that she is a nonresident alien with wages unrelated to the U.S. is not objectively reasonable and is clearly frivolous for the reasons set forth earlier in this Decision. … Department of Revenue, TC-MD 170396G, 2018 WL 3808557 *1 (Or Tax M Div, Aug 6, 2018), taxpayer asserted “money received from private employers did not qualify as ‘wages’ under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and was therefore

James v. ReconTrust Co.

845 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 29, 2012

In addition, they argue that ORS § 86.705(2) contains just a single restriction on who may be the beneficiary: the beneficiary “shall not be the trustee unless the beneficiary is qualified to be a trustee.” … And as Judge Alley observed in McCoy, it is reasonable to require that “the interest of the beneficiary is clearly documented in a public record” before permitting a foreclosure to proceed without judicial supervision.

State v. Ayers

207 Or. App. 668 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 13, 2006

We are unaware of any rule that requires us to confer immunity upon a person for his crimes in Oregon when his criminal activities in other states serve to prevent a speedy trial in this state.” … Johnson, 339 Or 69 , 116 P3d 879 (2005), clearly indicate otherwise. 11 Washington had enacted the IAD in 1967.

Hanna v. Peters

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 21, 2022

A plaintiff requesting a “mandatory injunction” must “establish that the law and facts clearly favor her position, not simply that she is likely to succeed.” Id. … Although Defendants argue that Hanna is no longer at risk of infection because he has now recovered from the virus, they present no evidence that one bout with the COVID-19 virus affords complete immunity to future infection

Avery v. Clackamas County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 12, 2013

Regardless, Bunick’s knowledge and experience in real estate development was convincingly established at trial. … The court has already stated that it finds Bunick qualified to render opinions about property development.

Smith v. Williams

180 Or. 626 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1947

In the instant case the record fairly establishes that respondent did have a pre-warning of his condition. In Jones v. Pasco, 179 Va. 7 , 18 S. E. (2d) 258 , 138 A. L. … If the guest knows the character of the automobile driver, knows that the driver’s experience and skill qualify him to deal with the road and traffic conditions likely to be encountered on a particular journey, and has no

Employers-Shopmens Local 516 Pension Trust v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

235 Or. App. 573 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 16, 2010

Accordingly, defendants reasoned that “the very same regulations [plaintiffs] ask[ ] this Court to incorporate into the * * * [p]olicies to override the policy language establish that there is no coverage in any event.” … Although the general definition of “employee” clearly excludes coverage for the named insured’s trustees and directors, see 235 Or App at 577 n 3, the endorsement clearly provides coverage for such persons to the extent that

Mendoza v. Reynolds School District

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 7, 2025

See id. at 1180-81 (noting that absent “clearly irreconcilable intervening precedent of a higher authority, the three- judge panel was “bound by the rule set forth in Johns” and the plaintiff’s “only path to relief in … Mar. 5, 2015) (“[The self-represented plaintiff and parent] fails to identify which of her ‘rights, privileges, or immunities’ the [d]efendants infringed. . . .

Neuberger v. City of Portland

288 Or. 155 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1979

The decision with which we are now concerned is clearly quasi-judicial, and we find it unnecessary to formulate, in the present case, a test for making that determination.” … "Minor changes,” it says, should be supported by a factual showing and the "public need and justification for the particular change should be established.”

State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak

351 Or. 179 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 6, 2011

The court reiterated that that line gave the 8 police clear guidelines and added that it also satisfied the needs of citizens of this state 9 "to have their constitutional rights spelled out as clearly as possible … purposes, between 17 the two situations." 18 Meharry, 342 Or at 180. 19 As the state seems to acknowledge, the court in Meharry did not dispense 20 with the Brown and Kock requirement that, to qualify

Haynes v. Board of Parole

Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 5, 2017

The court-appointed lawyer who represented the mother at the termination hearing had been recently removed from a list of lawyers who were qualified to represent clients in such proceedings, and the lawyer moved to withdraw … According to petitioner, the balance of equities here clearly favors excusing his untimely filing, so this court should allow a late filing as a matter of equity.

Menefee v. Fisher

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 6, 2020

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. … Motion for Preliminary Injunction The Court DENIES plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction as plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success on the merits. See Winter v.