Case law

State v. Dart

312 Or. App. 288 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 16, 2021

Because defendant’s assignments of error address pretrial rulings on whether defendant would be allowed to 1 ORS 161.200 establishes the choice-of-evils defense. … Freih, 270 Or App 555, 559, 348 P3d 324 (2015) (“We assume without deciding that a threatened psychological harm to a defendant or a third party could, in some circumstances, qualify as a ‘private injury’ within the meaning

Powell v. System Transport Inc.

83 F. Supp. 3d 1016 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 26, 2015

She clearly differentiated between the statute System Transport relied upon and the statute she asserts controls the reimbursement issue currently at issue. … That contingency is clearly stated in the Policy’s choice-of-law provision and it is realized here.

United States v. EK

471 F. Supp. 924 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 24, 1979

However, since the presumption is that an offender of a certain age is a juvenile, the facts ought to clearly convince one on the side of these conclusions in order to warrant transfer. … After considerable time and sustained effort, several youth workers (and the psychiatrist) felt they had established trust and general rapport with E.K.

Powell v. Bunn

185 Or. App. 334 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 11, 2002

under the First Amendment Establishment Clause is as follows: (1) the law must reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose; (2) it must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion (as distinguished … parties effectively have ignored the usual summary judgment standard of review insofar as the superintendent’s order is concerned and have cited the standard of review articulated in United Citizens, 104 Or App at 54 . 5 We qualify

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.

Keller v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

197 Or. App. 450 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 9, 2005

The record is also clear, however, that plaintiff was repeatedly told that his doctors could not establish an actual cause for his disease. … addition to the evidence provided by defendants, plaintiff provided evidence that his claim for Workers’ Compensation benefits was denied for lack of evidence of asbestos-related disease. * * * [P]laintiffs counsel has a qualified

Munger v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc.

332 F. Supp. 3d 1280 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 18, 2018

A court must presume "that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. … In Penn Plaza , the Supreme Court held that a collective bargaining agreement that "clearly and unmistakably" requires union members to arbitrate specific claims is enforceable. Id. at 274 , 129 S.Ct. 1456 .

Watkins v. Ackley

370 Or. 604 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2022

analysis to determine the retro- activity of new rules of federal constitutional law in state post-conviction proceedings and denied retroactive appli- cation of any new constitutional rule of criminal procedure that did not qualify … legislature already has made that choice, by enacting a statute—the PCHA—that requires retroactive application in post-conviction of any new fed- eral constitutional rule of criminal procedure and that the Supreme Court has clearly

Rodriguez v. Hunt

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 22, 2024

Defendants’ purported evidence fails to establish that any of the destroyed ESI was relevant to the litigation. … [destroyed] documents cannot be clearly ascertained because the documents no longer exist,’ a party “can hardly assert any presumption of irrelevance as to the destroyed documents.” Leon v. IDX Sys.

Oregon Laborers-Employers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.

188 F.R.D. 365 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 1, 1998

Specifically, defendants assert that plaintiffs have failed to explain: (1) which elements of their causes of action can be established for all putative class members based solely on evidence from the named plaintiffs; (2 … Defendants do not argue that plaintiffs’ attorneys are insufficiently qualified to prosecute this suit and the materials submitted by plaintiffs on this point demonstrate just the opposite.

Roop v. PARKER NORTHWEST PAVING, CO.

194 Or. App. 219 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 21, 2004

Sullivan, 376 US 254 , 84 S Ct 710 , 11 L Ed 2d 686 (1964), they would have been immune from liability for defamation in the absence of proof of actual malice. … issue in Erlandson , in which we explained that less is required of counsel in bringing a civil suit than in initiating a criminal action: “ ‘Sometimes this is expressed by saying that want of probable cause must be “very clearly

Bialostosky v. Cummings

319 Or. App. 352 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 27, 2022

Similarly, we have concluded that a “roster of names of substitute teachers, prepared by the school dis- trict, clearly relates to the conduct of the public’s business in allowing temporary replacements to be found for regular … Even assuming, arguendo, that a public hospital operating room report, a list of substitute teachers, or a list of concealed-carry permit holders establish the outer bound- aries of what constitutes the “public’s business

State v. Giron-Cortez

372 Or. 729 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 26, 2024

More is required to establish “extreme indifference to the value of human life.” … Giron-Cortez But, to whatever extent Boone must be read to compel the majority’s transformation of extreme indiffer- ence from a circumstance element to a conduct element, the footnote in Boone is clearly wrong

Quesnoy v. Department of Revenue

286 Or. App. 359 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 28, 2017

In their fourth assignment of error, petitioners challenged the ALJ’s ruling that Quesnoy’s entire damages award was subject to garnishment and that she had not proved that $10,000 of that award qualified for the “personal … DOR expressed that position clearly during the contested case hearing: “[I]f a party is going to claim exemption they have the obligation to—they have the burden to come forward and show that they are entitled to that exemption

McGarrah v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

296 Or. 145 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1983

. “* * * Both the medical and other evidence establish that job-related stress caused claimant’s mental disorder.” Id. at 457-58 . … The court began its analysis by declaring that the Wisconsin Workers’ Compensation Act clearly did not intend to limit recovery to physical injuries and traumatically caused mental injuries.

State v. Merrill

303 Or. App. 107 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 18, 2020

The rule also ensures fairness to opposing parties, by requiring that “the positions of the parties are presented clearly to the initial tribunal” so that “parties are not taken by surprise, misled, or denied opportunities … It is subject to multiple compet- ing interpretations and does not conclusively and defini- tively establish a legislative intent at odds with Hendricks.

Strawn v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 98 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 6, 1962

established. … Clear and Convincing Evidence: Appeal of Kliks Appeal of Kliks, supra, clearly established the presumption of assessment validity upon sound reason and logic.

Oregon v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop)

345 B.R. 686 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Jul 20, 2006

The Fund established hereby is intended to be perpetual. … That is clearly not the position debtor takes with regard to the use of the income from the fund. I conclude that debtor, through its predecessor the 1909 corporation, was the set-tlor of the fund.

Estate of Marjory Gail Thomas Osborn-Vincent v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 3, 2019

Iijima is a qualified witness under FRE 803(d) and FRE 902(11). It does not matter that she works for defendants’ parent company or has changed roles or job titles. … Conversely, defendants have established good cause to quash the Iijima deposition. Discovery has closed. Briefing on pending dispositive motions is nearly complete.

Smith v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 22, 2025

Gross income includes “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.” Comm’r v. … Plaintiff’s interpretation of IRC sections 3401(c) and 3121(a) as excluding private employment is also contrary to established federal law. See Muhammad v.