Case law

Unigestion Holding, S.A. v. UPM Tech., Inc.

305 F. Supp. 3d 1134 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 30, 2018

UPM has not clearly alleged, however, that it offers a product that is interchangeable with a product offered by Digicel. … Thus, the first substantive flaw in UPM's antitrust claim is its failure clearly to define the scope of the relevant product market.

United States v. Wallamet Val. & C. M. Wagon-Road Co.

44 F. 234 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · May 12, 1890

formed, under the general laws of Oregon, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a wagon-road from Albany across the Cascade mountains to the .Deschutes river, “all lands, right of way, rights, privileges, and immunities … When his certificate to that effect was filed with the secretary of the interior, the fact of completion was established.

Do v. Platinum Management, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 31, 2024

"Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous." … Thus, this factual finding is not clearly erroneous.

Doe v. Wright

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 14, 2025

MOTION TO DISMISS This Court previously concluded that (1) Plaintiff stated a claim that Wright violated her right to equal protection, and (2) he was not entitled to qualified immunity … Rather, “[t]he official must also be responsible for establishing final government policy respecting such activity before the municipality can be held liable.” Id. at 482–83.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of White

311 Or. 573 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1991

The Bar has the burden of establishing ethical misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. BR 5.2. … The evidence does not show clearly and convincingly that the accused filed the lien merely to harass.

Calista Enterprises Ltd. v. Tenza Trading Ltd.

43 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 8, 2014

Morgan, found that 79 percent of the 840 qualified respondents identified “PORNTUBE” as a brand name. Tauger Decl. Ex. V, Dkt. 99-23 at 9. Mr. … Maronick found that only 1.9 percent of qualified survey respondents considered the term “porn tube” to be a trademark or source identifier.

State v. Juarez-Hernandez

316 Or. App. 741 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 5, 2022

If the declarant is unavailable to testify, the statement may be admitted only if the declarant was less than 12 years old (or more than 65 years old) when the statement was made and “the proponent establishes that the time … As we have previ- ously described it, OEC 803(18a)(b) creates “two doors,” and qualifying statements are admissible if the proponent of the evidence “passes through either of those doors.” State v.

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.”

State v. Wesley

254 Or. App. 697 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2013

The commentary further suggested that, although the concepts embodied in first-degree murder were reflected in the newly revised statute, certain concepts embodied in second-degree murder would qualify as murder under the … The answer clearly is “yes;” they would be liable for the murder of WJW under the felony-murder rule, as codified in the 1971 Criminal Code at ORS 163.115(l)(c) (1971), and in the current Criminal Code at ORS 163.115(l)(b

Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

8 Or. Tax 19 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 14, 1979

This can be clearly illustrated by reference to the 1976 edition of the Yearbook of Railroad Facts, published by the Association of American Railroads. … Whether such testimony is admissible has not been clearly decided. See McCormick, Law of Evidence (West 1954), "Expert’s Opinion Based on Reports of Others,” 32-33, and cases cited therein; Reid v.

Wyers v. American Medical Response Northwest, Inc.

Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 11, 2016

In contrast to the first mental state requirement, then, the second one clearly refers to constructive awareness of a particular fact— another person’s physical or financial abuse—not awareness of the defendant’s own conduct … AMR does not dispute that each of the six plaintiffs qualified as a “vulnerable person” within the meaning of ORS 124.100(1)(e). 5  As we note later in this opinion, the evidence in the record is sufficient to permit

Clausen v. M/V NEW CARISSA

156 F. Supp. 2d 1192 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 27, 2001

Elston also went on to say that “the case for general causation is well established in the literature for contact toxicity.” … And— [I]n order to qualify as “scientific knowledge”, an inference or assertion must be derived from the scientific method.

Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 2023

As LUBA noted, based on the context of the DCC including DCC 22.36.025 and DCC 22.36.010(C)(1)(b), which contains a time limit for sub- mitting an application to extend a CUP, “[t]he county clearly knows how to insert a time … It could only be exercised within the contours established by the county code, and under that code, by the “precise question” submit- ted by Gemmet.

State v. Ogden

39 Or. 195 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1901

And, as we have seen, a witness called for the defendant in a criminal action to establish. his reputation as to any specific trait of character is required to testify on cross-examination in relation to similar specific … to testify concerning the general reputation of another witness ought to be required on cross-examination to detail with much greater particularity all the facts and circumstances that may in any manner tend to limit or qualify

State v. Mosqueda-Rivera-Burdette

344 Or. App. 238 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 2025

Indeed, on appeal, we require appellants to establish that there was trial court error rather than requir- ing respondents to establish that there was not. … But, as noted earlier, we require appel- lants to establish that there was trial court error rather than requiring respondents to establish that there was not.

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.”

Higgins v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Branch

170 Or. App. 542 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 25, 2000

Here, the state has reserved eligibility for license plate registration to those who meet its statutory qualifications. [15] Those who qualify must then "obtain permission" from DMV in order to obtain the custom license plate … In my view, what is clearly a regulation of an individual's speech does not become something else merely because of the state's interest.

United States v. Wallamet V. & C. M. Wagon Road Co.

42 F. 351 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 12, 1890

formed, under the general laws of Oregon, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a wagon road from Albany, across the Cascade mountains, to the Deschutes river, “all lands, right of way, rights, privileges, and immunities … But the conclusions reached on the first plea make it certain, in the judgment of this court, that the complainant cannot, and ought not to, prevail in this suit — First, because the claim is clearly a stale one, and also

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

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 26, 2019

First, the witness is qualified if he or she has expertise in the precise pertinent art at issue. … “To qualify as prior art for an obviousness analysis, a reference must qualify as ‘analogous art,’ i.e., it must satisfy one of the following conditions: (1) the reference must be from the same field of endeavor; or (2)

Nelson v. Lane County

304 Or. 97 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1987

FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION Title 42 U.S.C. section 1983 prohibits state officials operating "under color of" government authority from violating any of plaintiff's "rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution … Clearly, the State has a compelling interest in controlling drunk driving.