Case law

Mockaitis v. Harcleroad

938 F. Supp. 1516 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 15, 1996

The appended affidavits and other materials establish the following facts. … The appended affidavits establish the requisite “good cause.”

Emmons v. Southern Pac. Co.

97 Or. 263 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1920

Its rights would be prejudiced by a judgment against it under such conditions, because it had lost its right to compel the contractor to respond over to it, as he had been exonerated by the judgment in his favor and was immune … The case before us, then, is like the Doremus case, so clearly discussed by Mr. Justice Fullerton, up to the rendition of the judgment against the defendant.

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.

Anderson v. Britton

212 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1957

That case arose prior to the effective date of the Act, at a time when jurisdiction over Indian offenses in Indian country was clearly vested in the federal courts, but the Act (which applied to California as well as Oregon … Such rights were established by the treaty of 1870 and were expressly reserved by Public Law 280.

Portland General Electric Co. v. City of Estacada

194 Or. 145 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1952

If I correctly understand that which is said in the opinion of Justice LUSK, he clearly concedes that that is the law. … And by what other method could de facto status be established?

American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Eugene

Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 15, 2016

But the court also observed that “[t]he public’s right of inspection is not without qualifi- cation.” Id. at 44. … OHSU, 359 Or 168, 376 P3d 998 (2016) (weighing state’s constitutionally recognized interest in sovereign immunity against plaintiff’s right to a remedy as a matter of law); Wallulis v.

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.

Oregonians for Sound Economic Policy, Inc. v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

187 Or. App. 621 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 2003

Hall, 186 Or App 113, 119 , 62 P3d 394 (2003) (ORS chapter 125 provides comprehensive framework regarding guardianship proceedings, but remains qualified by requirements of ORS 109.119). … Thus, SAIF reasons, the legislature clearly thought that a request under ORS 656.702 also functions as a request “under this 1973 Act.” OSEP argues that legislative counsel committed no codification error.

State v. Martine

277 Or. App. 360 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 6, 2016

As we understand it, defendant does not contend that the state was required to establish that the destroyed object was, in fact, the girl’s iPod. … As a matter of syntactic function, the emphasized term, by virtue of “other,” qualifies the preceding term—that is, that to constitute “physical evidence,” those items must be “evidence” Otherwise, it would seem, the use

Ross v. Robinson

169 Or. 293 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1942

The south skid marks showed less clearly because, according to some *301 of the testimony, the surface where they were made was rougher than that under the left wheel marks. … Later, however, he qualified that statement by saying that he had not noticed the easterly end of the longer mark prior to the accident.

Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy

Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 18, 2024

One is whether—assuming that the proposed facil- ity is required to comply with the “applicable substantive criteria” recommended by the county—the two-mile setback requirement qualifies as one of those criteria. … The wording of track 2 arguably suggests even more clearly a legislative intent to make ORS 469.504 (1)(b)(B) an “appropriate mechanism” for review.

Weston v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Jul 7, 2016

Plaintiff must establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of the evidence. Feves v. Dept. of Revenue., 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971). … Alternatively, Plaintiff maintains that he qualifies for the first circumstance in Revenue Ruling 99-7. (Id. at 4.)

Allen v. Hendrick

104 Or. 202 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1922

the gift in trust, he could doubtlessly introduce in evidence anything that would tend to establish the allegation.” … However, the intention must be clearly proved; the language used must be such as to disclose with certainty an intention to create a trust.

State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Orozco

129 Or. App. 148 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 20, 1994

The taking of a blood sample to establish a DNA databank does not violate any of those constitutional protections. … the genetic profile of the donor or otherwise determining the identity of persons or contract with other qualified public or private laboratories to conduct that analysis; "(c) Maintain a criminal identification data base

Adidas-Salomon AG v. Target Corp.

228 F. Supp. 2d 1192 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 30, 2002

Defendants argue that advertising merely showing the product is clearly insufficient; instead the advertising must feature in some way the trade dress itself. … However, Felix the Cat merely states that “a mark must be more than ‘distinctive’ to qualify for protection under the dilution statutes.” Id. (citations omitted).

Dames v. Paul Revere Life Insurance

49 F. Supp. 2d 1194 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 15, 1999

Sulta-ny, M.D., examined Dames and diagnosed her as having fibromyalgia, commenting that: “She does qualify for the usual criteria.” Plaintiffs Ex B, p. 2. On October 30, 1997, Dames saw Dr. Andre Barkhuizen, M.D. … Other panels adopted a burden shifting methodology which requires the claimant to present proof that the decision actually was tainted by the conflict, at which time the burden would shift to the fiduciary to establish that

Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy

Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 18, 2024

One is whether—assuming that the proposed facil- ity is required to comply with the “applicable substantive criteria” recommended by the county—the two-mile setback requirement qualifies as one of those criteria. … The wording of track 2 arguably suggests even more clearly a legislative intent to make ORS 469.504(1) (b)(B) an “appropriate mechanism” for review.

Behnke-Walker Business College v. Multnomah County

173 Or. 510 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1943

The Tennessee court held that the portion of its property *534 which was entitled to immunity from taxation was that portion physically used and- actually occupied in educational work. … It is there held that the term “college” means a building *547 or group of buildings in which scholars are housed, fed, instructed and governed under college discipline, while qualifying for their university degree, whether

Drake Lumber Co. v. Paget Mortgage Co.

203 Or. 66 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1954

was not only fully apprised of the details of the plan of procedure which we have outlined and the object to be accomplished by it, but was herself a party to it, having signed the memorandum of December 16,1942, which clearly … Bennett, who qualified as an expert witness on the subject, testified that he made an inspection of the two houses after they were completed, from which he determined that material of the kind and character furnished by Drake

Halsey v. Airbus Helicopters S.A.S.

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 28, 2025

Because Plaintiffs cannot establish that Safran purposefully directed its activities at Oregon, there is no need for further analysis. … However, in an attempt to avoid workers compensation immunity, Plaintiffs argue they “were separately injured after the crash by the defendants’, including Med Trans’, negligent and intentional spoliation of evidence[.]