Case law

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.

Southern Pacific Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co.

216 Or. 398 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1959

The agreement provided the maintenance of certain clearances as established by the Public Utilities Commissioner of Oregon. … As a general proposition, indemnity agreements are not construed to cover losses to the indemnitee caused by his own negligence unless such effect is expressed clearly and unequivocally. Southern Pacific Co. v.

Stanfield v. Laccoarce

284 Or. 651 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1978

Incorporated, 264 Or 535 , 506 P2d 486 (1973) (facts clearly showed that employee was returning home from work and was no longer on the job). The trial cotut correctly denied defendants’ motion for a directed verdict. … Roy Laccoarce is not a party to this appeal. 2 Defendants contend that their lack of control over Roy "is conclusively established by the fact that Roy Laccoarce received no payment for this service which was totally unrelated

Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team v. Kitzhaber

341 Or. 496 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 19, 2006

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to impair judicial immunity if otherwise applicable. "(11) Reporting requirement. … The court had no difficulty applying that test in Armatta , because the initiative measure clearly changed the substance of numerous provisions of the state constitution.

Cascadia Wildlands v. United States Forest Service

937 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 21, 2013

Further, the FWS reported that the Project would have repercussions on individual nest sites, and the EA and FONSI clearly disclose .these findings. AR 13494-98, AR 15244. … Finally, plaintiffs argue that the proposed thinning in Riparian Reserves threatens a violation of ACS Objective 8, therefore qualifying the potential effects of the Project significant.

Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. Lightforce USA, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 17, 2020

First, the witness is qualified if he or she has expertise in the precise pertinent art at issue. … Windauer’s testimony or independently establishes an invention date.

State v. Rathie

101 Or. 339 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1921

A disputed question supported by respectable testimony on each side was here presented to the circuit judge, who from his long service on the bench and his residence in the county was much better qualified to decide it than … These assaults, and the seizure of arms and ammunition, while each a distinct offense against the law, were so clearly a part of the res gestae of the conspiracy of which the shooting was one of the incidents, that it requires

THOMPSON EX REL. THORP FAMILY CHARIT. REMAINDER UNITRUST v. Federico

324 F. Supp. 2d 1152 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 8, 2004

At the outset, the court rejects defendants' position that there are no material issues of fact regarding whether plaintiff clearly instructed Federico to sell the Trust's equity holdings. … Evidence qualifies as "clear and convincing" when the "`truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.'" Simpson v.

Conachan v. Williams

266 Or. 45 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1973

apparently hold that it is proper to consider not only plaintiff’s actual employment at the time of his injury, but that under some circumstances consideration may also be given to other employments for which plaintiff was qualified … It was held -that such evidence was properly excluded -as “clearly irrelevant” and “speculative” as a basis for estimating his wages on a job at which he had never worked. In Wilson v.

Health Net, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

22 Or. Tax 128 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 9, 2015

FACTS The relevant facts have been established through stipulation, including stipulated exhibits. For the years at issue, those facts are as follows. … (3) The ICPC has terms that are much more clearly contractual than those in the Compact. Consideration is also clearly present in the form of a requirement of two years advance notice before withdrawal.

Menchu v. Multnomah County Health Department

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 16, 2024

The on-call interpreters pointed out that they were required to be qualified, and had obtained the necessary credentials to become qualified. (Bannon Moore Decl. Ex. 5 at 20.) … First, the plaintiff must establish his prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation.

Serenity Lane v. Lane County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Mar 7, 2012

An organization that is established primarily for the benefit of its members, is not a qualifying charity.” … At best, the survey establishes the price difference between Serenity and other treatment centers.

In re Sanai

Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 27, 2016

Clearly, no other sanction the Court might impose, except for dismissal itself, would be effective in remedying this misconduct.” … established by other evidence that it rendered any supposed error harmless.

State v. King

361 Or. 646 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 13, 2017

There was “no discussion during the course of the [Jimenez] trial whether [defendant] would be offered immunity or anything else for his testimony[.]” … Rivers, 283 Conn 713, 726, 931 A2d 185, 193 (2007) (terms of plea agreements should be stated clearly and unambig- uously, so that defendant knows what is expected from him and what to expect in return); State v.

Cooper v. Garcia-Cash

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 20, 2023

Plaintiff has yet to serve Rogers and the Court doubts Rogers qualifies as an individual “acting under color of state law” subject to liability under section 1983. … “[T]here is a clearly established constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the government.” Richards v.

Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital

293 Or. 543 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1982

Clearly, the 1973 legislation reaffirmed and extended liability for ordinary negligence to persons whose loss is an "indirect" or "secondary" consequence of immediate injury to another. … I, § 20: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens." U.S. Const., amend.

Hust v. Moore-Mccormack Lines, Inc.

176 Or. 662 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1945

To hold otherwise would be, in our opinion, to ignore the *672 clearly expressed intention of the parties that there should not be a divided control of the vessel, its master and crew. … We do not mean to suggest that the purpose of the law was to grant to agents immunity from suit for their own torts, but simply that it leaves the question of the agents’ liability untouched.

State v. Nagel

320 Or. 24 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1994

This court has a well-established methodology for deciding cases under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. … Carlson, 677 P.2d 310, 316-17 (Colo. 1984). [1] I do not mean to suggest that police conduct that is not a "search" or a "seizure" is immune from judicial scrutiny entirely.

Dougherty v. Aleutian Homes, Inc.

210 F. Supp. 658 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 20, 1962

That the plaintiff Bettinger had in mind the use of his pow *669 er as Mayor is established by substantial evidence. 27 Plaintiffs make some claim that the real sponsoring agency was the Alaska Housing Authority and that … We first satisfied ourselves that they were qualified as to construction experience and financial ability.

State v. Carlisle

370 Or. 137 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2022

All that the court meant to say, as I understand that opinion, is what those statutes clearly tell us. … The remaining question is whether other indicators of legislative intent clearly refute that presumption.