Case law

Redside Restoration v. Deschutes County

344 Or. App. 383 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 22, 2025

We agree with LUBA that 1000 Friends waived the argument under the principles of waiver established in Beck v. … For that reason, we agree with LUBA that the attorneys’ earlier disagreement on that point, prior to the first appeal to LUBA, could not have had bearing on the matter once it was on remand to the county and thus did not qualify

In re Day

362 Or. 547 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 2018

We now proceed to consider whether, under the standards set out at the outset of this opinion, 362 Or. at 550-53, 413 P.3d at 412-14, the evidence clearly and convincingly established the alleged misconduct violations that … BAS did not initiate a complaint against [respondent] with the Commission and clearly did not want to participate in these proceedings.

Tharp v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 3, 2021

Specifically, the motions dispute whether Plaintiff can establish two elements required to trigger air carrier liability under the Montreal Convention: (1) that the alleged assault qualifies as an “accident”; and (2) … I don’t think he meant to, just clearly a perk of this seat and lovely interaction… Or his pot pretzels and loss of motor skills…” Id.

Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems v. State of Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · May 16, 2024

Background Principles “It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Grayned v. … See, e.g., ECF 31 at 24 (asserting that OHA “has complete and standardless discretion” to define what qualifies as a “transaction”); id. at 25 (asserting that “whether a contract will qualify as a ‘material change transaction

Kinkel v. Long

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 6, 2022

A state court decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if it identifies the correct legal principle but applies it in an “objectively unreasonable” manner. Woodford v. … Even if Graham applies to aggregate sentences similar to Kinkel’s, it is not clearly established that Kinkel’s Attempted Murder convictions qualify as non-homicide offenses for which a juvenile offender may not be sentenced

Landauer v. State Industrial Accident Commission

175 Or. 418 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1944

We are not unaware of the embarrassment attendant upon an attempt to establish, even by the most learned members of the medical profession, what causes cancer. … compensation Avithin twelve months from the date of the injury, the court of appeals in affirming the commission’s action in dismissing the claim and the Superior Court’s order of affirmance of such dismissal, say: “The law itself clearly

Yeatts v. Polygon Northwest Co.

360 Or. 170 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2016

Moreover, Trytko verified that Wood Mechanix’s employees were trained and instructed in fall protection protocols and that Wood Mechanix would have a “competent and qualified person” inspect the fall-protection equipment … However, the court also cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 409 (1965), for the proposition that there are a variety of exceptions to that rule of immunity. Macomber, 249 Or at 65 n 3.

Hunter v. U.S. Department of Education

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 12, 2023

Further, when a plaintiff requests a “mandatory injunction,” the “already high standard” to obtaining injunctive relief is “further, heightened,” and the plaintiff must “establish that the law and facts clearly favor her … At the pleading stage, the plaintiff must “clearly ... allege facts demonstrating” each element. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016.).

Redside Restoration v. Deschutes County

344 Or. App. 383 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 22, 2025

We agree with LUBA that 1000 Friends waived the argument under the principles of waiver established in Beck v. … Redside argues that the asserted facts “are clearly relevant to the profitability and suitability factors in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) and (C),” which was the issue on remand.

Perez v. Potier

179 Or. 123 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 1, 1946

I remember clearly that she said it was for life of both and the one who lived the longest would own the property. Q. … It may be inferred from plaintiff’s contentions, although not too clearly, that Bessie Potier was to devise the real property to Perez if she predeceased him.

In Re Medina

177 B.R. 335 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Oct 11, 1994

First, as the Aetna court stated, the statutory language of § 6323 clearly applies only with respect to the lien created under § 6321. … Certain priorities, however, are established by 48 CFR 32.803(e).

Bordelon v. Airgas USA, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · May 9, 2022

Milam is qualified to give expert testimony on these issues based on his training and experience. ECF 28 at 12–14. … Stephens is not providing a medical opinion—which no party asserts he is qualified to do. Mr.

Crimson Trace Corp. v. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

355 Or. 476 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 30, 2014

To qualify for the attorney-client privilege as defined at OEC 503 (2), a communication must be a “confidential communication,” that is, a communication “not intended to be *491 disclosed to third persons.” … But that has no bearing on the interpretation or application of a rule of evidence that clearly applies.

Farmer v. Baldwin

346 Or. 67 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 26, 2009

“(b) Concise statements of the legal question or questions presented on review and of the rule of law that petitioner on review proposes be established, if review is allowed. … The qualifiers “attempt” and “as nearly as practicable” are key terms.

Giustina Land & Timber Co., LLC v. Eugene Water & Electric Board

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 30, 2025

“Section 2675(a) establishes explicit prerequisites to the filing of suit against the Government in district court. It admits of no exceptions.” Cadwalder, 45 F.3d at 300. … Defendant argues that “Plaintiffs were free to hire their own forensic investigator, and indeed, they allege they hired ‘qualified experts’ to investigate the Holiday Farm Fire.” Def.

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”). … Moreover, the depart- ment’s authority to do so is readily established by the plain text of ORS 308.205(2).

Yeatts v. Polygon Northwest Co.

Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2016

Moreover, Trytko verified that Wood Mechanix’s employees were trained and instructed in fall protection protocols and that Wood Mechanix would have a “competent and qualified person” inspect the fall-protection equipment … However, the court also cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 409 (1965), for the proposition that there are a variety of exceptions to that rule of immunity. Macomber, 249 Or at 65 n 3.

State v. Miller

67 Or. App. 637 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 11, 1984

The state argues: "Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's conversations with the Dammasch personnel qualified as privileged material, the emergency circumstances at hand fully justified the overriding of that privilege … "Clearly, the Supreme Court in Brewer v. Williams, 430 US 387 [ 97 S.Ct. 1232 , 51 L.Ed.2d 424 ] (1977), intended the doctrine to apply in cases such as the instant one.

Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission

248 Or. App. 301 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 23, 2012

“A familiar but nonexclusive test for determining whether discretion has been abused is whether the decision reached was ‘clearly against reason and evidence.’ ” EMC Mortgage Corp. v. … The provisions cited by petitioner do not establish that the plan is internally inconsistent or otherwise undermine the commission’s decision.

State v. Deloretto

221 Or. App. 309 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 23, 2008

Pratt , then — the first Supreme Court case to apply the Johns analysis — establishes a stringent test for similarity. … To “demonstrate” that falsity, the evidence must manifest it “clearly, certainly, or unmistakably.” State v.