Case law

State v. Tauscher

227 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1961

But, as we stated in the latter case: “* * * This assumes, of course, that the charging part of the indictment so clearly alleges facts constituting a crime that the defendants would not reasonably be confused by the erroneous … The theft statute there applicable contained the qualifying clause “provided such property possesses ascertainable value.” The court concluded that the statute was broad enough to cover the case presented.

Fluck v. Blevins

969 F. Supp. 1231 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 18, 1997

Problems arise, though, if it is not a cash settlement, for then the court must establish a value for the consideration received. … Of course, there may be circumstances where the result is so obvious that precise computation is not necessary, e.g., where the amount of the verdict, reduced by the settling defendants’ proportion of liability, is clearly

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.)

301 Or. 447 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1986

a "built" exception to Goal 3 or 4 "obviously" differs from the same kind of exception to Goal 14 because "an area can be lightly developed in such a way that agriculture is rendered impracticable but the land may still qualify … Second, the county does not clearly define what it considers to be the line between "urban" and "rural" levels of services.

Toohey v. WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORP. HEALTH & WELFARE

727 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 26, 2010

ERISA requires that every employee subject to a qualifying plan receive an SPD. 29 USC § 1022 (a). … Thus, in order to be awarded BTA benefits, plaintiffs must establish that the airplane was "leased" by WWC.

Ramsey v. Taylor

166 Or. App. 241 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 22, 2000

Evidence in the record establishes not only that Taylor and Senior spent most of their time together in the last few months of his life but also establishes that Taylor took increasing responsibility over that time in managing … Clearly, Senior felt he was entitled to more attention and respect from his family, as shown by his numerous comments to others.

Finley v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 15, 2012

Focus ORS 316.587(8)(b) does not specifically require the prior year‟s return to be timely filed in order to qualify for safe harbor. … Clearly, subsection (8) does not expressly require that the prior year‟s return be timely filed.

State v. Knowles

289 Or. 803 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1980

More specifically, defendant relies upon a claim of immunity from prosecution under ORS 131.515(2). [7] The policy underlying that subsection is that there should not be unnecessary separate trials stemming from conduct which … It then stated that the test was not firmly established in Oregon or federal constitutional law, but cited no Oregon or federal cases casting doubt upon it or establishing any other constitutional test.

French v. State Industrial Accident Commission

156 Or. 443 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1937

Thus, the plaintiff does not contend that there is something missing concerning which she could not be expected to have knowledge; as, for instance, the issuance of a marriage license, the entry of a divorce needed to qualify … Presumptions operate when the preliminary facts demanded by them have been established, and when the party to be favored has not himself negatived the fact which he asks judge and jury to presume.

Drentlaw v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Feb 12, 2019

A home office maintained purely for the “personal convenience, comfort, or economy” of the employee does not qualify. Id. (citations omitted). … Although the letter from T & T does not clearly resolve the question, other evidence supports that finding.

Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. Lightforce USA, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 29, 2020

It relieves a third party from patent infringement liability, and it acts as a waiver of sovereign immunity and consent to liability by the United States.”). … as the sole Government-approved supplier of the Accused Products;” (2) defendant “manufactured [the products] for, and sold them to, exclusively the Government or one of its contractors;” (3) “the Government tested, qualified

Lenz v. Auto Acceptance (In Re Lenz)

448 B.R. 832 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Apr 7, 2011

Clearly, the Plaintiff falls within the scope of individuals as referenced in [§ 107(c) ]; however, taking the statute as a whole, the court does not believe that § 107(c) was enacted for the special benefit of any specific … Since the authority to administer and resolve disputes as to claims is within the core jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts (see 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(B)), the subject matter of Count One of the Complaint clearly does not qualify

Robinson v. Lane County Assessor, Tc-Md 091455c (or.tax 6-10-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Jun 10, 2011

Plaintiff's appraisal witnesses were certainly qualified, but their conclusions simply not credible. … In closing, although not clearly stated, it appears that Plaintiff spent close to $500,000 building the house (and perhaps the barn and other outbuildings), plus the railroad. That work was all done on or before 2001.

Salerno v. Douglas County Sheriff's Office

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 24, 2021

Defendants argue that there are no instances where Sheriff Hanlin made gender-based slurs, refused to hire a more qualified female over a less qualified male, or exhibited gender-based animus in the workplace. … Here, Plaintiff clearly expressed her opposition to the decision to promote Mr. Cross, which she has alleged constituted unlawful gender-based discrimination.

Gund

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 16, 2026

Plaintiff testified she could see the interpreter more clearly from where she was relocated and that this resolved her difficulties. … To establish a violation of the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must (1) be a qualified individual with a disability, (2) be denied a reasonable accommodation that is needed “to enjoy meaningful access to the

Universal EDI Corp. v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · May 21, 2013

Roode testified that Plaintiff “qualifies for a section 119 lodging deduction.” … It is well established by case law that a cash method taxpayer cannot pay an amount by executing a note. See e.g., Baltimore Dairy Lunch v.

Financial Programs, Inc. v. Falcon Financial Services, Inc.

371 F. Supp. 770 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 5, 1974

It is a qualified secrecy arising from mutual understanding and required by good faith and good morals. Kamin v. Kuhnau, 232 Or. 139 , 374 P.2d 912, 918 (1962). … This evidence is clearly too speculative and conjectural to form a sound basis for an award of damages.

Rogue Valley Sewer Services v. City of Phoenix

Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 2015

In the same 1906 election, voters “reserved” initiative and referendum powers “to the qualified voters of each municipality and dis- trict as to all local, special and municipal legislation of every character in or for their … This court held the property was nonetheless “clearly exempt from taxation.” Id. at 473.

Acker v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 10, 2012

314.011(2)(a) states that “[a]ny term [used in this chapter] has the same meaning as when used in a comparable context in the laws of the United States relating to federal income taxes, unless a different meaning is clearly … The aforementioned IRC sections do not establish an April 15 filing due date.

Eden Gate v. D & L Excavating & Trucking

178 Or. App. 610 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 9, 2002

Clearly, the purpose of the contract is to bring the property into compliance with DEQ regulations. … In general, a decision that one party does not qualify for a declaratory judgment stating a conclusion does not invariably imply that the opposite conclusion has been proved.

Vavrosky Maccoll Olson Busch & Pfeifer PC v. Employment Department

212 Or. App. 174 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 18, 2007

In other words, ORS 657.471 establishes a presumption in favor of charging employers, subject only to limited exceptions. … ORS 9.160(1) provides: “Except as provided in this section, a person may not practice law or represent that person as qualified to practice law unless that person is an active member of the Oregon State Bar.”