Case law

State v. Lavitsky

171 Or. App. 506 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 20, 2000

Clearly, both cannot be correct. For the reasons stated below, I conclude that Henderson is an anomaly and should be overruled. [1] It is inconsistent with several of our subsequent cases. … But we also agree with defendant that the provision qualifies as an erroneous term.

Dougan Co. v. Klamath County

99 Or. 436 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1920

It is clearly brought out in the record that he lost on his contract, and that if his bid on Block 10 had been accepted he would have made money. … Brown, J., had not qualified and took no part in the consideration of this case.

Vaughn v. Langmack

236 Or. 542 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1964

Clearly, the legislature did not repudiate the Hotelling and Shives decisions. … The necessity for a reasonable construction can probably be illustrated most clearly by using the words of the Colorado court in Rosane v.

DeHart v. Tofte

326 Or. App. 720 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2023

defendant Schwanz’s post “was look- ing for students to share stories and experiences about hav- ing worked with Chair Brown in that capacity” and that that “post’s connection to public school and to public school students clearly … See Neumann, 295 Or App at 344 (defendant’s act of publishing such an opin- ion online qualified as “conduct in furtherance of * * * the constitutional right of free speech” for purposes of ORS 31.150(2)(d), because the right

Gowin v. Heider

237 Or. 266 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1964

The evidence above recited (and there is more to the same effect) is clearly sufficient to warrant the submission of the question of duress to the jury. Growin was in jail. … Assembly of God et al, 230 Or 167 , 368 P2d 937 , the plaintiff was not qualified to testify as to the value of the property.

Freeman v. Wentworth & Irwin, Inc.

139 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1932

The reply admitted-“it was the duty of the plaintiff to furnish a ldt of ordinary hand tools” but qualified this admission by adding “it was the duty of the defendant to furnish all special tools.” … The above testimony and the foregoing principles of law induce the conclusion that the plaintiff *14 failed to establish a cause of action against the defendant based upon common law negligence.

Humane Society of the United States v. Gutierrez

625 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 25, 2008

Because section 120 clearly and unambiguously communicates Congressional intent, I do not evaluate the legislative history. … Instead, in their effort to establish standing, plaintiffs suggest that some of its members, including Ms.

League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. United States Forest Service

883 F. Supp. 2d 979 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 10, 2012

Here, the phrase “to the greatest extent practicable” qualifies a reference to pre-project planning, best available technology, management practices, and scientific knowledge— all of which are tools, not mandates. … This proposal is not clearly differentiated, however, from what the Forest Service did consider.

Carter v. United States Department of Commerce

186 F. Supp. 2d 1147 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 20, 2001

To qualify for exemption 5 under the “deliberative process” privilege, a document must be both predecisional and deliberative. Assembly II, 968 F.2d at 920. … The adjusted data at issue in this case are clearly not suggestions, recommendations, or advice; they are not subjective or personal, and they do not reflect “agency give-and-take” by which a decision was made.

State v. Bowman

326 Or. App. 565 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 2023

test evidence is admissible in a DUII proceeding to establish that a defen- dant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” … Defendant was clearly aware of O’Key, and, based on her failure to refer 574 State v.

Revivify, LLC v. Thrivify LLC

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Mar 7, 2025

First, specific performance of the agreement is impossible because one of the parties to the agreement is now immune from that remedy. … Co.,26 it held that “the rule is well established that nominal damages may be recovered for the bare infringement of a right unaccompanied by any actual damage.” And in that court’s 1952 decision in Hall v.

Twine

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 8, 2025

Benecke, 379 F.3d at 595 (“The ALJ’s determination that [the claimant] retains functional capacity to perform sedentary or light work was in error; because the record, including the limited [VE] testimony, clearly establishes … (quoting Benecke, 379 F.3d at 595)); Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1021 (rejecting argument that “allowing the ALJ to have a mulligan qualifies as a remand for a ‘useful purpose’”).

Dorsey v. Oregon Motor Stages

183 Or. 494 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1947

His experience qualified him as an expert concerning transportation matters. Mr. … That in each case where transportation facilities are provided hereunder, reasonable rates of fare * * * shall be established * * *. * * * “4.

Malbco Holdings, LLC v. Amco Insurance

629 F. Supp. 2d 1185 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 29, 2009

According to Malbco, this additional occupancy requirement means that something less than completely falling to the ground qualifies as collapse. Otherwise, the occupancy requirement is rendered superfluous. … Clearly one cannot occupy a building if it has completely fallen down or caved in. However, the same may be true for a building which has partially fallen down or caved in.

AKS LLC v. Dept. of Rev.

23 Or. Tax 300 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 18, 2019

The court determined that the term consisted of words of common usage and thus looked to dictionary definitions to establish their plain meaning. Id. at 332. … additional context, the court determined that the legislature inserted the term in order to limit the scope of the exemp- tion, ultimately concluding that property used on chicks was too attenuated from egg production to qualify

State v. Burton

373 Or. 750 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2025

However, cross-examination “should not be limited to the exact facts stated on direct examination, but [may] extend[ ] to other matters which tend to limit, explain, or qualify them, or to rebut or modify any inference resulting … The state made a tactical choice not to present that evidence, but only after defense counsel had already 10 The trial court never clearly ruled on the state’s objection.

Garza v. City of Salem

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 22, 2024

The Court granted summary judgment to Defendant Baker on the federal false arrest claim based on qualified immunity, and the other three claims proceeded to trial. Trial was held from November 7-9, 2023. … Punitive Damages on Excessive Force Claim A new trial may be granted if “an award of damages is grossly excessive or monstrous, clearly not supported by the evidence, or only based on speculation or

Miles Laboratories, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

6 Or. Tax 82 · Oregon Tax Court · May 29, 1975

ORS 314.665 describes the “sales factor” used in the formula established by the Uniform Act. … The drafters of the Uniform Act clearly were seeking to avoid duplication of taxes by different states on the same income of foreign corporations.

Ameriflex Engineering LLC

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2021

“A matter qualifies as an ‘adversary proceeding,’ as opposed to a ‘contested matter,’ if it is included in the list given in Bankruptcy Rule 7001.” Barrientos v. … Had it done so, counsel, through further questioning, could have explored the alleged inconsistent statements and clearly established or rebutted the claim for perjury. But the time for that analysis has passed.

Slater v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 24, 2021

The claimant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of disability under the Listings. … “An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Id.