Case law

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.”

Feltner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · May 26, 2021

The court combined these two jobs to find that 25,000 jobs qualified as a significant number of jobs in the national economy. /d. at 529. … It also conflicts with her testimony that she could not work around people because she had “no immune system.”

State v. Civil

283 Or. App. 395 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 11, 2017

The prosecutor explicitly referred to Cox, describing its facts, and concluded: “I think [the circumstances in Cox] are clearly analogous to this. … One might reasonably wonder why—as a matter of structure and syntax—if the legislature intended subsections (l)(b) and (l)(c) to function as qualified exceptions to an omnibus prohibition in subsection (l)(a), it did not

State v. Cloutier

286 Or. 579 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1979

In other words, this is not a case such as Woolard, in which it clearly appeared from the record that the defendant was separately sentenced on the burglary and the larceny, with the two sentences to run concurrently. … Written law is now routinely qualified, rewritten, or repealed by the courts acting under the authority of natural law, fundamental law, or divine revelation.”

State v. Gensitskiy

365 Or. 263 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 25, 2019

Subsection (1) clearly sets out a basic principle that violations of multiple statutes are punished separately. … There is no suggestion in that legislative history that the intention of making "a separate offense, also, for each victim" was qualified by how many statutes were violated.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Jordan

290 Or. 303 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1981

As stated in In re Moynihan, 166 Or 200, 221 , 111 P2d 96 (1941), although a bar disciplinary case: "The trial committee that heard the witnesses 'is better qualified to determine disputed questions of fact than we who read … He then told her that "Your comment was clearly heard by several members of the court” and asked whether she denied saying it.

Boquist v. Dept. of Rev.

23 Or. Tax 263 · Oregon Tax Court · Mar 21, 2019

Rather than break this connection to federal tax- able income, SB 1528 establishes an “addition” to federal tax- able income. … Oregon does not impose its tax on the amount deducted under Section 199A(a), the corresponding addback amount under SB 1528, or even on “qualified business income” as used in Section 199A(a).

State v. Farnam

82 Or. 211 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1916

The general rule in this state is that an indictment for murder in the first degree necessarily involves all other grades of homicide which the evidence tends to establish: State v. … When the intention to be proved is important only as qualifying an act, its connection with that act must be shown, in order to warrant the admission of declarations of the intention.

State v. Buffum

166 Or. App. 552 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 19, 2000

Most importantly, ORS 426.100(3) provides for the right to representation by and appointment of qualified counsel—a right that is virtually more difficult to waive than is the corresponding right of defendants in criminal … The applicable statutes clearly establish the issues at an involuntary mental commitment proceeding: before it may involuntarily commit a person, the trial court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person

Wynne v. Lincoln County Assessor, Tc-Md 080231c (or.tax 10-16-2009)

Oregon Tax Court · Oct 16, 2009

ORS 308.007 (1)(a), (2). 2 Because this matter was heard under the *Page 5 provisions of ORS 305.288 (1) (2007), the court cannot order a reduction in RMV unless Plaintiff satisfactorily establishes an error in value of at … Plaintiff clearly has not shown the 20 percent error required by ORS 305.288 (1) (2007). Accordingly, Plaintiffs appeal is denied.

McGee v. GREGORY FUNDING, LLC

692 F. Supp. 2d 1270 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 22, 2010

In August 2006, plaintiff began shopping for a conventional loan; however, due to defendant Gregory not reporting the payment history on plaintiffs loan, he was unable to qualify for a refinance with another lender. … While true that section 1635(e)(2) limits a rescission of a refinance with no new advances, the Board’s regulation clearly states that new amounts financed that exceed the unpaid principal balance, any earned unpaid finance

Oregon Aero Inc. v. Navigators Insurance Company

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 24, 2025

Oregon courts have established three requirements to assert a claim of privilege: 1) the communication must have been between a client and the client's lawyer; 2) it must have been a confidential communication; and 3) it … It is a qualified immunity, not a privilege, that protects from disclosure "the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney or other representative concerning the litigation

Cunningham v. Thompson

188 Or. App. 289 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 12, 2003

According to the state, nothing about the status of Cochran’s license at the relevant time suggested that he was not a qualified expert, and his ‘self-described efforts to keep dangerous criminals locked up would almost certainly … Cochran also believed that there was a “sadistic component,” a “prevalent pattern he has of using physical cruelty or violence towards others for establishing dominance and getting other people to be scared of him” and that

Department of Human Services v. C. M. K.

270 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 25, 2015

See ORS 419B.504 (establishing grounds for terminating parental rights for unfitness). … In support, mother relies on three cases in which we concluded that a “risk of relapse” failed to qualify as unfitness under ORS 419B.504. See State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. D. F.

Hayes v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 3, 2021

ORDER AND OPINION   matter.2 Thus, the Court construes plaintiff’s argument to be that the Court clearly … Plaintiff also objects to the Court’s statement regarding defendant’s possible Eleventh Amendment Immunity regarding his claims based on Oregon state law in in the previous order.

State v. Matheson

220 Or. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 2008

To qualify as “plain,” an error must (1) be one of law; (2) be obvious — that is, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) appear on the face of the record, such that we need not go outside the record or choose between competing … Hall, 327 Or 568, 574 , 966 P2d 208 (1998) (if the evidence supports multiple reasonable inferences, it is for the trier of fact to decide which inference to draw and whether that inference establishes the ultimate fact in

Kittelson v. Astrue

533 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 30, 2007

Stuart’s evaluation of Kittelson’s employability because he “has not established credentials as a vocational expert. Accordingly, he is not qualified to determine Mr. Kittelson’s ‘employability.’ ” Id. … Thus, if credited, this evidence clearly establishes that Kittelson is incapable of *1119 performing substantial gainful employment.

T.L. ex rel. Lowry v. Sherwood Charter School

68 F. Supp. 3d 1295 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 18, 2014

The Ninth Circuit has made clear that to be actionable under Title IX, an educational institution’s response to harassment must be “ ‘clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances[.]’ ” Oden v. N. … To prove that a public program or service violated Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show: (1) he is a “qualified individual with a disability”; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits

State v. McDonald

55 Or. 419 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1909

McDonald was appointed administrator by the county court of Union County, and that he thereafter qualified, took possession of all the assets and property of the estate, and administered upon the same in the usual course … We are unable clearly to see that the court below ought to have rejected the deposition, and there was no error in receiving it. 10.

State v. Makuch

340 Or. 658 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 2, 2006

That ‘organizer’ was a zippered, book-sized looseleaf binder, which was clearly marked on the first page: ‘ATTORNEY/CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY PRIVILEGE CLAIMED ON ALL CONTENTS.’ … On reconsideration, however, the trial court concluded that Neal’s personal organizer qualified as “files, papers, [or] effects * * * relating to the provision of legal services” under ORS 9.695(1).