Case law

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.

Gardner v. Dollina & Elliott

206 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1955

Clearly that is where the wash occurred when Ward tunneled under the ditch. … Viewed through a View Master, the photograph clearly depicts the details of the scene at the point in question.

Simmons v. HOLM

229 Or. 373 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1961

Thus it is clearly established that the defendants had, by piling lumber in the street, created a blind corner, which not only prevented the driver from seeing the boys until he was north of the north end of the lumber pile … We first refer to the established rule that ordinarily proximate cause is for the jury. No citations are necessary.

Colony Insurance Co. v. Victory Construction LLC

239 F. Supp. 3d 1279 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 9, 2017

Therefore, carbon monoxide clearly and unambiguously fits within the definition of a “pollutant” under the Policy.”); Midwest Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. … However, the Oregon Supreme Court also qualified its statement: The fact remains, nevertheless, that it is but one of the many secondary rules for the construction of insurance contracts that have been established by court

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.

State v. Cortes

374 Or. 461 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 25, 2025

When defense counsel sought further clarification on Vidal’s understanding of what qualified as a “weapon,” Vidal testified that the meaning of the term depended, to some extent, on context: “[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Okay. … This is clearly a knife. And under the, the weapons provi- sion that the Probation Officer read[,] this clearly consti- tutes a weapon.”

Menstell v. Johnson

125 Or. 150 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1927

Prom the foregoing we conclude that the term “building line” has a well-established legal significance, and that in the absence of qualifying words, the easement created by a building line shown upon a plat inures to the … The evidence, however, points out clearly the neighborhood immediately surrounding defendant’s lot.

Tone v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Feb 24, 2017

Plaintiff is allowed a deduction based on those expenses. 14 Plaintiff’s home office does not qualify as a regular business establishment because it does not fall within any of the exceptions listed … Mere “goodwill” entertainment is insufficient to qualify for a deduction.

Barbara Ann Miller, individually and as Trustee of the LCDR Donald G. Miller Trust; Steven L. Miller-Hart v. State of Oregon et al.

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 17, 2026

discovery events—the date they realized that trusts have statutory immunity (November 6, 2025) and the date Klein acknowledged that he had not excavated the relevant property prior to recording (July 12, 2023)—but neither … STAT. § 12.110 (establishing a two-year statute of limitations for most torts).

NW Environ. Advocates v. DEQ

349 Or. App. 17 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 29, 2026

In the order, EQC clearly weighs the compet- ing expert opinions and finds that NWEA “did not present sufficient evidence to overcome DEQ’s use of the 6:1 total nitrogen-total phosphorus ratio to adjust the target phospho … NWEA argues that Annear was not qualified to give expert opinion testimony on the relationship between nutrients and algal growth, including whether the permit’s nutrient limits will achieve compliance with the biocriteria

Plemel v. Walter

303 Or. 262 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1987

This formula demonstrates the effect of a new item of evidence on a previously established probability. … For example, if the other evidence in this case had established that Walter was sterile, his prior odds of paternity *272 would have been zero.

Shasta View Irrigation District v. Amoco Chemicals Corp.

329 Or. 151 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1999

ORS 30.905(1) establishes that time period as eight years. … Crown Not Bound by Statute Unless Specially Named, or Clearly Intended "The history of legislation is to a large extent a history of the restriction of the royal prerogative, but `it is a well-established rule, generally

Windle, Adm'x v. Flinn

196 Or. 654 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1952

Windle is the duly appointed, qualified and acting administratrix of the estate of the said J. E. … We submit that appellants’ first theory clearly contemplates a suit or action which will place property wrongfully withheld from the estate in the possession of and under the dominion of decedent’s representative for such

Sills v. Koehn

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 28, 2025

App. at 386, n.1, the Oregon Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law. Under Jackson v. … Petitioner fails to show that the Oregon Court of Appeals unreasonably applied clearly established federal law.

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

Wright v. Service Employees International Union Local 503

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 28, 2020

’ alternative argument regarding sovereign immunity. … It is presumed that a district court lacks jurisdiction and “the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Vacek v.

Oregon Environmental Council v. Oregon State Board of Education

307 Or. 30 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1988

Second, it establishes “guidelines and criteria for review and selection of textbooks,” ORS 337.035. 1 It has done so by rule, OAR 581-11-118. 2 Finally, the Board ratifies or rejects the Commission’s selection of textbooks … In addition, if the court reversed, it was required to make “special findings of fact based upon evidence in the record and conclusions of law indicating clearly all respects in which the agency’s decision is erroneous.”

Guardado v. Fhuere

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 15, 2025

A state court decision is "contrary to . . . clearly established precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court's] cases" or "if the state court confronts … The Oregon Court of Appeals’ decision is therefore neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.

State of Oregon v. Buck

200 Or. 87 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1953

In my judgment, it is clearly demonstrated in the majority opinion, as well as in the opinion of Mr. … In both acts the intention of the legislature clearly appears from the language employed.

Paye v. Sherrill

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 21, 2025

"In order to survive a motion for summary judgment on a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must establish a genuine issue of material fact that the defendant (1) acted under the color of state law, and (2) deprived him of a constitutional … Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. MSJ 10. Having resolved this case on the question of excessive force, however, the Court need not reach this issue.