Case law

Bossard v. Dept. of Rev. (TC-MD 190283R)

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 17, 2020

Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under IRC section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded. See Reese v. … Had Plaintiff timely filed his return, he might have been entitled to a refund of some portion of the amounts withheld but not the entire amount. 6 Plaintiff’s state of mind is clearly shown by his deliberate act of filing

Colasanti v. City of Portland

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 17, 2023

In Oregon, a person “may not be employed as a police officer . . . for more than 18 months” without being “certified as being qualified as a police officer” pursuant to standards established by the Board on Public Safety … However, the ADA “does not require that a person meet each of an employer’s established ‘qualification standards,’ . . . to show that he is ‘qualified.’” Bates, 511 F.3d at 990.

Ashby v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 090511c (or.tax 5-5-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · May 5, 2011

"The law is also clear that once domicile is established or determined to be in a particular location, it remains there until the person establishes a new domicile." Duncan v. … Plaintiff's second argument is more clearly articulated, but misses the mark on the facts before the court.

Black v. Arizala

182 Or. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 5, 2002

After the accident, the legislature amended the Tort Claims Act to make public bodies and their employees immune from liability when the injured party received such benefits. … First, many of the provisions at issue are broader than the one in the Agreement and clearly cover the parties' entire relationship, not simply a specific document.

Pioneer Resources, LLC v. D. R. Johnson Lumber Co.

187 Or. App. 341 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 24, 2003

Assume, for present purposes, that the facts of Case #1 establish mutual mistake without gross negligence by B, the seller, and that the facts of Case #2 establish unilateral mistake by B, coupled with inequitable conduct … In the present case the evidence clearly establishes that plaintiffs mistakenly believed the fence in question marked the eastern boundary of their land.

Hamilton and Hamilton

350 Or. App. 759 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 17, 2026

In addition, Husband is currently qualified for higher paying jobs with no further training. … “(i) The duration of the marriage; “(ii) The age of the parties; “(iii) The health of the parties, including their physi- cal, mental and emotional condition; “(iv) The standard of living established

United States v. Detwiler

338 F. Supp. 2d 1166 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 5, 2004

This stealth route clearly was intended to prevent close scrutiny of the Feeney Amendment, or a fair opportunity to oppose the measure. … Nonetheless, judges are duty-bound to act when the political balance established by our Constitution is threatened.

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

Dept. of Rev. v. Wakefield

Oregon Tax Court · Sep 22, 2023

With respect to the Uniformity Clauses, the Department correctly points out that all the cases Taxpayer cited were factually distinguishable, and Taxpayer cited them mainly to establish the test. … In Notice 95–34 the IRS provided guidance on the tax problems raised by certain trust arrangements in seeking to qualify for exemption from section 419.

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.

Emery v. State

297 Or. 755 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1984

City of Beaverton, 294 Or. 254 , 259 n. 5, 656 P.2d 306 (1982), we qualified that statement: "* * * the criteria of compensable `taking for public use' under art I, § 18, are not necessarily identical to those pronounced … Assuming that a movant establishes a right to possession, the court may postpone execution of an order to return the property only "until such time as the things in question need no longer remain available for evidentiary

Crockett v. Portland Police

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 25, 2020

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United states . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … Plaintiff should clearly indicate in his third amended complaint whether he seeks to bring a Title VI claim, a section 1983 claim for violating his right to equal protection, or both.

Hansen v. Bussman

274 Or. 757 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1976

In cases involving personal injuries, however, it is the rule that in order to establish the necessary causal *785 relationship it is sufficient to establish that the injurious consequences were the "probable” result of the … The letter was dated June 8, 1971 and refers, among other things, to an incident in January 1970 at which time plaintiff was seen at a county "immunization clinic,” as well as references to plaintiff’s treatment by Dr.

Lepesh v. Davidson

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 13, 2020

A party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … Lepesh’s Third Amended Complaint; and (V) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on all access to the court claims. Mot. Summ. J. [64] at 2.

Friends of the Metolius v. Jefferson County

200 Or. App. 416 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 5, 2005

With respect to the issue of whether the proposed cabins qualified as ‘tourist rental cabins,’ the board of commissioners imposed a condition requiring that the cabins be available for tourist rentals at *421 least 245 days … Since the county’s decision was not reversed, and LUBA did not establish a clear maximum owner usage, the County understood that it was to make a decision based on new findings that justified annual owner usage within the

Schmidt v. Mt. Angel Abbey

347 Or. 389 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 24, 2009

We therefore conclude that conduct qualifies as "sexual exploitation of a child" under ORS 12.117(2)(d) if an individual uses a child in a sexual way for his or her own gratification or benefit, and the child is personally … Examples serve no right or wrong purpose, and the legislature may use examples in one statute to establish limits on an ambiguous term, and in another to illustrate or expand.

State v. Gortmaker

295 Or. 505 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1983

But, as the grand jury came to be separated from the petty jury, the distinctive character of their functions was more clearly realized. … From the preliminary jury list the names of those persons known not to be qualified by law to serve as jurors shall be deleted. The remaining names shall constitute the jury list.

United States National Bank v. Duling

39 Or. App. 329 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 19, 1979

But if that word were not there, this case would not be here: clearly the mother did not remarry after the daughter became 21. … While the trust was the principal testamentary instrument of Kenneth Duling (his will poured over into the trust) he did not give his wife a general power of appointment in the trust assets which would have qualified her

Cruthirds v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Jun 9, 2016

Defendant’s conference officer determined that Stephen’s van qualified for the “exception to the strict documentary and substantiation requirements for a qualified nonpersonal use vehicle,” but concluded his truck was a … general purpose truck” and did not qualify for that exception.

Cocina Cultura LLC v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 7, 2020

Defendant The Contingent offered to post a bond with this Court equaling “the maximum grant for which plaintiff would have qualified if it were otherwise eligible to receive funds” ($42,985.00), “plus one year’s worth of … Plaintiff’s interests are protected by The Contingent’s deposit of monies from the Fund into the Court’s registry and the Defendants’ representation that sovereign immunity will not interfere with any future dispersal