Case law

Key-Matthews

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 1, 2026

Defendants Fox and Curry County Health Network oppose Plaintiff’s Motion, arguing that she can submit the report of her own qualified expert to oppose the pending summary judgment motion. See Def. … Because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure clearly require that a party disclose expert information before using that expert’s opinion to support a dispositive motion and because expert discovery is ongoing in this matter

State v. Sierra

361 Or. 723 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 10, 2017

In order to “assure the absence of such a motivation,” the Court articulated the fol- lowing two prophylactic rules: 4   The existence of that authority does not mean that its exercise is immune from challenge. … Here, the total length of defen- dant’s second sentence—276 months—exceeds the length of his first sentence—250 months—and therefore qualifies as a “more severe” sentence.

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.

Cochrane v. Berryhill

260 F. Supp. 3d 1317 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 18, 2017

Consistent with this testimony, the Social Security Administration (SSA) found her improved enough after ten years that she no longer qualified for disability. … The language does not clearly establish what exactly is meant by the word “machinery” or that it is concerned only with machinery that has dangerous moving parts. While that, may be the case, it is not clear.

Diemert

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 9, 2026

The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … The “hole” in question was clearly cut intentionally to allow the passage of plumbing lines for the sink in the living quarters of the RV and then sealed, albeit not to Plaintiff’s satisfaction.

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.

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.

State v. Capell

156 Or. App. 582 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 28, 1998

The court concluded that “the legislative history of this section, testimony at congressional hearings, and debates on the floor of Congress, inescapably lead to the conclusion that [Title III] establishes a broad prohibition … Indeed, such a reading of Scott would require us to assume that the Supreme Court intended to overrule or qualify its earlier decisions in Gelbard and United States v.

Lofall v. Clackamas County

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 3, 2025

“Within eight minutes of their arrival, without conducting a thorough investigation or establishing probable cause,” Blyth and Gunnarson “arrested [Lofall] on allegations of harassment.” (Id. at 24-25.) … Portlock moves to dismiss Lofall’s relevant claims on the grounds that the statute of limitations bars his claims, and she is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. (See generally Mot.

Sym-Agro, Inc. v. Seipasa, S.A.

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2021

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.” … Defendant has developed a product called Seican, which Plaintiff alleges is “biologically and effectively” the same product as Cinnerate and therefore qualifies as a new or modified version of Cinnerate.

Parkerson v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 12, 2021

Feb. 22, 2021) (“The few courts that have considered the issue agree that prisoner-plaintiffs who proceed together in one action must each pay the full filing fee which means they must, at the very least, qualify to proceed … The payments shall be clearly identified by the name and number 1 Parkerson has also filed a motion for class certification (ECF No. 8).

Ooma, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

24 Or. Tax 48 · Oregon Tax Court · Mar 2, 2020

ongoing, but readily terminable, service relationship with customers in Oregon, taxpayer may no longer rely on its nationwide sales and marketing efforts for immunity from tax even if, as taxpayer contends, those efforts … The Court held that these thresholds showed a “clearly sufficient” nexus. Id.

Stemmer v. Scottish Insurance

33 Or. 65 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1898

White, claiming that he was well qualified for the position, and stating that, if plaintiff did not accept White as his appraiser, they would deny all liability; and that, in view of this threat, their client, against his … But he waives his right to an appeal by accepting a benefit which is inconsistent with the claim of right he seeks to establish by the appeal.” See also 2 Beach’s Mod. Eq. § 926 and notes.

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox

812 F. Supp. 2d 1220 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 23, 2011

The remaining one was made on a website which also clearly communicates its position: “bankruptcycorruption.com.” … The Court will promptly set a telephone scheduling conference to establish a case schedule for trial. IT IS SO ORDERED. .

Department of Human Services v. B. A. S.

232 Or. App. 245 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 25, 2009

The statute was enacted in 2001 as part of a comprehensive bill drafted by the Juvenile Code Revision Work Group of the Oregon Law Commission to establish consistent rules of procedure in juvenile court dependency cases. … Additionally, the public’s considerable interest in maintaining the finality of adoption judgments is clearly reflected in legislative enactments.

State v. MOMENI

234 Or. App. 193 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 3, 2010

OEC 404(3) does not require the state to demonstrate that the testimony squarely qualifies under one of the listed categories in the statute, or that it demonstrates a distinctive methodology, or even that the uncharged acts … If the only tendency of the disputed evidence is to show that defendant is the kind of man who sexually attacks women, then the legislature clearly intends that the evidence be excluded.

Hostmann v. First Interstate Bank of Oregon, N.A. (In Re XTI Xonix Technologies, Inc.)

156 B.R. 821 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Jul 19, 1993

It is based on general principles of justice and does not spring from contract although it may be confirmed or qualified by contract. … The Fastrans parties did not dispute that this language clearly and unambiguously waived all rights the guarantor, upon payment, had against any party.

Coos Waterkeeper v. Port of Coos Bay Oregon

284 Or. App. 620 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 5, 2017

We *638 begin with petitioners’ assertion that the freshwater activities constituted “channel relocation” involving the taking of more than 50 cubic yards of material from a water of the state and, therefore, would qualify … The Port’s permit application itself clearly requested authorization to remove the berm as part of the overall project.

State v. Lewis

352 Or. 626 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 8, 2012

appeared 22 shocked when he saw the catering truck, which was evidence that his lack 23 of attention was protracted rather than just momentary. 24 (9) The catering truck had its turn signal on, was clearly … Cars qualify as inherently dangerous 11 weapons. State v. Hill, 298 Or 270, 277, 692 P2d 100 (1984).

In Re Mikkelsen Farms, Inc.

74 B.R. 280 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · May 19, 1987

The structure of § 101(17) clearly anticipates the court to make a thorough examination, from several perspectives, of the eligibility of a debtor under Chapter 12. … Marks standing Chapter 12 trustee for Oregon and established his compensation.