Case law

Unruh v. St. Charles Health Systems, Inc.

324 Or. App. 343 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 23, 2023

Plaintiff opposed defendants’ motion for summary judgment, including submitting an ORCP 47 E declara- tion in which plaintiff’s counsel attested that plaintiff had “retained an unnamed qualified expert witness who is avail … In doing so, the court clearly accepted the parties’ framing of 346 Unruh v. St. Charles Health Systems, Inc.

Portland Adventist Hospital v. Department of Revenue

8 Or. Tax 342 · Oregon Tax Court · May 6, 1980

Both of the appraisers are able, experienced men, and are well qualified as expert witnesses. … The evidence in the record clearly and convincingly refutes any assumption, never founded by defendant on any evidence, that the rent of plaintiffs tenants was subsidized and thus below market.

Rogala v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co.

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 25, 2021

And (2), assuming plaintiff did qualify, did he establish that his disability lasted throughout the 90-day elimination period and two-year mental illness limitation? … This Court previously ordered, in response to Hartford Life’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record, that “the circumstances of this case clearly establish that additional evidence is necessary to conduct

State v. Walch

346 Or. 463 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 2009

The words ‘from’ and ‘to’ create no problem here, because they clearly describe the idea of movement, i.e., of a change of position. … In 1967, the legislature established the Criminal Law Revision Commission to revise and modernize the criminal laws of Oregon. Or Laws 1967, ch 573, §§ 1-2.

United States v. State of Or.

787 F. Supp. 1557 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 16, 1992

This original plan set conservation goals for each fish species, established fishing regulations and provided for the establishment of future management techniques. … In the treaties negotiated by Moses in 1879 and 1883, he clearly sought to establish rights to land in the traditional aboriginal territories of the Chelan, Entiat and Wenatchi, but no mention was made of fishing rights,

PacifiCorp v. Dept. of Rev.

374 Or. 189 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 18, 2025

As the quoted text of the constitutional provision shows, it contemplates that the legislature may expand on that definition (“as established by law”). … It is undis- puted that the WSATA Handbook’s provisions qualify as “methods and procedures,” and it is undisputed that those methods and procedures are directed toward the goal of identifying substantially the “real market

Pope v. Wilsonville T LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 6, 2021

. § 656.018(1)(a), “generally makes an employer that satisfies its insurance obligations for subject workers immune from civil liability for injuries to a worker arising out of the worker’s employment.” … STAT. § 656.017(1) to maintain workers’ compensation insurance or qualify as a self-insured employer. (Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl.’s Resp.”) at 10.)

State ex rel. v. Williams

45 Or. 314 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1904

for the arrest of persons whose money deposited in lieu of bail has been declared forfeited, it is not averred that it is incumbent upon him to issue such warrants, unless the duty in this respect can be implied from the qualifying … Clearly, the writ would not be chargeable with duplicity if addressed to one person, although it commanded the performance of a series of acts, each of which was a condition of the performance of its successor, where the

Epperson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 30, 2022

If it were credited as true, it clearly establishes the Plaintiff's disability. … Storm qualified her opinion by stating that while the limitations “likely” started more than one year prior to her 2019 opinion, it was “unclear how much longer” they had existed. Tr. 1123.

Segura v. Larson

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 15, 2021

A § 1983 plaintiff must establish both causation-in-fact and proximate (i.e., legal) causation. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008). … A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far reaching power not to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v.

Prime v. Prime

172 Or. 34 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1943

It certainly has not been the practice in this state to construe a decree for alimony, when thus qualified, as binding the husband’s estate. As a matter of construction Mansfield v. … Consequently, a declaratory judgment establishing a continuing liability for the life of the wife would be inappropriate.

State Ex Rel. Department of Human Services v. Radiske

208 Or. App. 25 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2006

The state concedes that it failed to establish that ground for termination under ORS 419B.506 and, on de novo review, we agree. See State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. … She also has not identified a realistic plan for supporting M in the event that she does not qualify for social security benefits.

LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OR. v. Legal Services Corp.

561 F. Supp. 2d 1187 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 7, 2008

The business of LSC is to make and administer grants to qualified civil legal services programs in each state of the nation. … The Oregon Law Center is a nonprofit corporation established in 1995 as an affiliate of LASO.

State v. Christian

249 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 21, 2012

The court then applied a "well-established meaning" of the word "filed" to define the meaning of the word. … mental state, it is also established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly."

Friends of Yamhill County, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners

351 Or. 219 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 20, 2011

See ORS 308A.062(1) (providing that exclusive farm use land qualifies for special assessment). … This court held that, although the board legitimately could have reached the 15 conclusion that it did, the board needed to identify and explain the factual premises of its 16 decision more clearly.

Cavanaugh Ex Rel. Cavanaugh v. Providence Health Plan

699 F. Supp. 2d 1209 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 16, 2010

The [made-whole] doctrine is clearly not eliminated from the plan by virtue of its precise terms. … Defendant, however, asserts Stanke’s Declaration is not sufficient to establish that Plaintiff has not been made whole because it constitutes hearsay and Stanke is not qualified to opine as to Plaintiffs future medical needs

Delta Property Co. v. Lane County

271 Or. App. 612 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 10, 2015

“ORS 215.213(2) lists uses that ‘may’ be established by a marginal lands county on land zoned for exclusive farm use. … Include a consolidated natural resource map or maps which clearly define the location of sites where conflicting uses are prohibited or limited.

State v. Wolfe

368 Or. 38 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 6, 2021

And, under both versions of the law, homi- cide of a child under 14 qualified as aggravated murder only if it was committed intentionally. ORS 163.095(1)(f) (2017); ORS 163.095(2)(b). … Under SB 1013, however, the homicide of a child under 14 can only qualify as aggravated murder if it was premeditated. ORS 163.095(2)(b).

State v. Hudson

253 Or. App. 327 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 7, 2012

Although officers did not formally place defendant under arrest, see ORS 133.005(1), they clearly placed a temporary restraint on and, therefore, stopped him inside his home; under the circumstances, when told to come out … “To determine whether the state has established that the facts are objectively reasonable [to establish probable cause], we examine the totality of the circumstances, including the officer’s training and experience.”

Wyatt B. v. Kotek

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 27, 2021

The weight of authority clearly demonstrates that the rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, though significant, are strictly limited in scope. … Accordingly, the Court concludes that the “case review system” requirement established by §§ 671(a)(16) and 675(5)(A) are subject to enforcement under § 1983.