Case law

East Valley Water v. Water Resources Commission

374 Or. 148 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 7, 2025

The term “benefi- cial use” is not specifically defined by statute, but qualifying beneficial uses include domestic use, municipal water sup- ply, irrigation, power development, industrial use, mining, recreation, conservation … That concept is reflected most clearly in ORS 540.610(1), which provides that “beneficial use” is the “basis, the measure and the limit of all rights to use of water” in the state.

Chrisman v. Cherisman

16 Or. 127 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1888

On the twenty-fourth day of June, 1885, the said will was duly admitted to probate in common form, and' the executors thereof having duly qualified, entered upon the discharge of their duties in administering the estate. … "Whiteaker as tending to establish smile dementia.

Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Jeffries

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 2021

Consistent with that well-established standard, the Court will apply the presumption of regularity in assessing Plaintiff’s motion. I. … Plaintiff contends that, because Tischer has only been employed by the Forest Service since 2020, she is not qualified to certify the completeness of a record that predates her employment.

State v. Benton

317 Or. App. 384 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 9, 2022

Sines also did not overrule or abrogate Smith, despite expressly acknowledging the test that Smith sets out for determining whether a jailhouse informant qualifies as a state agent. … However, because the informa- tion obtained by Layman was clearly delineated by the dates on which it was obtained through the recorded proffers, we reject defendant’s argument that all of defendant’s state- ments must be

Benson v. Williams

174 Or. 404 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 1, 1944

We shall assume, inasmuch as he appeared in both capacities in the circuit court, apparently without objection, that the will has been admitted to probate and that he is the duly appointed, qualified and acting executor and … the contract, been looked upon with jealousy, and the evidence to establish it will be weighed in the most scrupulous manner.”

Hulse v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · May 27, 2020

At step three of the sequential analysis, “a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is medically equivalent to a listed impairment—establishing a disability and ending the five-step inquiry—if the claimant’ … These are clearly inconsistent with an inability to ambulate effectively.

Waller v. Rocky Mountain Fire and Casualty Co.

272 Or. 69 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 15, 1975

Unless the proceedings are clearly and properly in equity we have adopted the general rule that proceedings to determine insurance coverage are to be regarded as in law. Falk v. … It removed the applicability of the young driver exception and made him an "insured" if he otherwise qualified under the definition of "insured." 1 Long, Law of Liability Insurance 3-3, § 301 (1966), states the accepted law

Burke v. Oregon Department of Corrections

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 25, 2025

He answered [the questions] in a way that clearly showed he understood the questions. . . . … It is undisputed that Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability, satisfying the first element of both claims.

State v. Anderson

374 Or. 326 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 25, 2025

Determining when a person has been “take[n] from ‘from one place to another’ ” is, as this court explained in Murray, “an exercise in metaphysics”: “The words ‘from’ and ‘to’ create no problem here, because they clearly … In context, we understand Sierra to hold that minimal movements are unlikely to qualify as movement “from one place to another,” even if the move- ment may also have increased the victim’s isolation or limited their freedom

State v. Jarnagin

351 Or. 703 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 26, 2012

As before, defendant said that he left her in the water for five to ten _______________________ "yes" or "no" without having to qualify his answers. 5 Cobb never clearly identified … It 4 provides: 5 "I, ____________, do hereby voluntarily, without duress, coercion, 6 promise of reward or immunity, submit to a polygraph examination.

State v. Langley

363 Or. 482 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2018

Like the rule of judicial **502 conduct at issue in Fadeley , JR 2-106(A) and Rule 3.10(A) proscribe judicial involvement by reference to concrete, well-defined situations that, on an objective level, would clearly appear … Sparks establishes the relevancy of the future dangerousness evidence that defendant now challenges on review.

Dreiling v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Sep 19, 2016

A taxpayer is required to maintain records sufficient to establish the amount of any deduction claimed. IRC § 6001; Treas Reg § 1.6001–1(a). … That was clearly not the case.

Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon

350 Or. 336 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 19, 2011

Plaintiffs' theory in this case, however, was not that the total amount of PIP benefits was too low—that amount was clearly set out in the policy and met statutory requirements— but rather that Farmers promised to pay all … H & R Block Tax Services, Inc., 174 F.R.D. 78, 84-85 (N.D.Ill.1997) (all class members paid significant fee for tax refund loan that they did not qualify to receive; only logical explanation for doing so was reliance on misrepresentation

Lee v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Aug 1, 2019

Therefore, for purposes of ruling on the motion to dismiss, I will assume that the 2016 property taxes qualify as a prepetition claim. … For the reasons discussed above, the facts alleged by Plaintiff clearly show that she has no legitimate claim that Defendant violated § 362.

Whittenberg v. Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 9, 2021

To qualify for DIB benefits, Plaintiff must establish that he was disabled under the Act between the alleged onset date of August 17, 2006 through September 30, 2008. … The rationale is clearly erroneous. Dr.

Mason v. Themarysue, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 4, 2022

However, the clauses in those cases were not accompanied by the further qualifier of the word “exclusively” contained in the clause at issue here. Instead, this case is more like Sixty-Two First St., LLC v. … These factors must establish that “extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties clearly disfavor a transfer” to defeat defendant’s motion to transfer venue.

HUMANE SOCIETY OF US 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.

United States Trustee v. Boulders on the River, Inc. (In Re Boulders on the River, Inc.)

218 B.R. 528 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 18, 1997

Clearly in Victoria Farms, the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of preconfirmation fees alone and could not have known that the fee would later be extended to posteon-finnation periods. … To assure that an appropriate number of qualified individuals are fairly and impartially recruited and appointed to serve as private trustees.

Rice v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · May 28, 2025

“An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, □□□□ not qualify.” Jd. … Against that backdrop, even though Plaintiff clearly interprets the evidence differently, she has 13 - Opinion and Order not (and cannot) establish error by simply advancing a different interpretation of the medical

Ahern v. Gaussoin

611 F. Supp. 1465 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 10, 1985

Those cases are clearly distinguishable because the attorney defendants in those eases were also directors and thus specifically subject to section 11. … Fisher’s remarks, whatever else one may say about them, do not qualify as a solicitation or the sort of “substantial participation” necessary to incur liability under section 12.