Case law

Valerio v. Valerio

224 Or. App. 265 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 3, 2008

We need not determine whether that incident sufficed, however, because a minimum of two qualifying contacts is required, and the January 2007 incident at the coffee shop clearly does not qualify. … In short, petitioner failed to establish the requisites for issuance of an SPO. The trial court erred in reaching a contrary conclusion. Reversed.

Donald H. Hartvig, Inc. v. Kellas (In Re Kellas)

113 B.R. 673 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 20, 1990

Both debtors established accounts in a pension plan created by US West (Plan), administered by a Contribution Plan Committee. … The statute referred specifically to ERISA qualified plans. The plan trustees argued the benefits were immune from garnishment under this statute.

State v. Schutte

146 Or. App. 97 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 29, 1997

“Upon leaving the establishment, we were both attacked by some people from behind. I was able to get up and help [defendant], as he was on the ground and was in a lot of pain. … Defendant argues that the court erred in finding that the corroborating circumstances were insufficient to *102 establish the trustworthiness of Bollinger’s statement.

Afzal v. Perb

239 Or. App. 284 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 1, 2010

unable to perform any work for which qualified * * *." … In response, PERB argues that claimant's burden of proof clearly required him to establish that he is incapable of performing any work for which he is otherwise qualified and that, because neither Bruce Bell nor Lynne Bell

Oregon v. Bowen

682 F. Supp. 1111 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 28, 1988

. § 1331 is limited by sovereign immunity. Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. Martin, 643 F.2d 1376, 1378 (9th Cir.1981). … Consequently, it is necessary to properly define the basis for jurisdiction and determine if sovereign immunity has been waived.

Horton v. OHSU

Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 2016

Plaintiff focuses her argument instead on the sec- ond independent clause, which is qualified by a dependant clause. … OHSU the same court held that “it is now clearly established by repeated decisions, that the legislature may pass laws alter- ing, modifying or even taking away remedies for the recov- ery of debts,” without violating various

Greenfield v. Ollikala

85 Or. App. 357 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 6, 1987

A qualified privilege ordinarily must be raised as an affirmative defense. … However, the fact that the defamatory matter was contained in a letter making a claim on a bond does not, in and of itself, establish the privilege as a matter of law.

Welch v. Bancorp Management Advisors, Inc.

296 Or. 208 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1983

Thus, to enjoy immunity, a corporate officer or employe must be acting within the scope of his employment and acting with the intent to benefit the corporation. 250 Or at 76-77 . … In deciding the present case, the Court of Appeals borrowed its primary motive test from the primary motive concept used to uphold qualified privilege in the defamation context.

Far West Federal Bank v. Director Office of Thrift Supervision

787 F. Supp. 952 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 9, 1992

The scope of the waiver, if not clearly defined in a contract or statute, must be determined by reference to underlying congressional policy. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. U.S. … I will not expand defendant’s waiver of immunity beyond the bounds established by Congress. Other courts have reached the same result. Philadelphia Gear Corp. v.

Applegate v. Ritchie

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 12, 2024

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense Additionally, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Whether qualified immunity can be invoked turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the official’s acts.

Roseburg Lumber Co. v. Commission

3 Or. Tax 323 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 3, 1968

. *325 denied, 385 US 830 (1966), to support its findings that plaintiff is not an importer entitled to immunity from taxation under the United States Constitution. … The evidence established that under normal conditions Lauan veneer could be supplied from the Philippine Islands in not to exceed three months, and birch veneer from Canada in not to exceed two months.

State Ex Rel. Evans v. Kozer

116 Or. 581 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1925

It is contended that this legislative enactment is unconstitutional because: (1) It abridges the privileges *585 and immunities of citizens of the United States; (2) it grants to a class of citizens privileges and immunities … S., Amend. 14, § 1), prohibiting special “privileges or immunities” and guaranteeing “equal protection of the laws.”

Columbia River People's Utility District v. Portland General Electric Co.

40 F. Supp. 2d 1152 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 23, 1999

PGE and PP & L raised a “state-action” immunity defense, arguing that the division of the Portland market was cloaked with antitrust immunity by the 1972 Order of the OPUC approving the agreement. Ill F.3d at 1436. … Midcal holds that the state-action doctrine cloaks anticompetitive conduct with antitrust immunity only if the state's intent to displace competition with regulation is "clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as

Citizens for Responsibility v. Lane County

207 Or. App. 500 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2006

Accordingly, the county must demonstrate a practical effect on its interests in order to establish standing to bring this appeal. … As explained, the statute clearly contemplates that a qualifying facility will be disqualified when it is ‘no longer used as a firearms training facility.’

Hoskinson v. Public Employes Retirement Board

23 Or. App. 328 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 10, 1975

Petitioner argues the medical evidence favorable to him “clearly outweighs” the contrary medical evidence. … His brief, however, answers, his own contention, stating: “It is well established that the findings of fact of an administrative agency will not be disturbed by a court if there is any substantial evidence to support those

In Re WCI Cable, Inc.

282 B.R. 457 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Jun 27, 2002

Moreover, he did not assemble either qualified employees or a qualified board who would be able to take the company into its next phase of operations.” Id. at 24. … However, the Alaska Railroad Corporation has clearly and unequivocally waived any defense based on sovereign immunity to allow me to hear and decide its objection to the WCI Plan.

McIntyre v. Crouch

98 Or. App. 462 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 13, 1989

To qualify under the filiation statute as an initiating party and be declared a father, see ORS 109.125(e) and ORS 109.155, petitioner must show that ORS 109.239 does not bar him. … Again, ORS 109.239 contains no qualifying language. 2 It is unambiguous. By its terms, it bars petitioner. We cannot rewrite the act.

White v. Taylor

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 13, 2020

Qualified Immunity Standards “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “In determining whether qualified immunity applies, courts ‘must determine whether: (1) the facts adduced constitute the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at

Charmley v. Lewis

77 Or. App. 112 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 1985

Five other witnesses’ testimony was offered to establish plaintiffs habit. … Merely because conduct is unusual or distinctive does not establish that it is a habit. On the other hand, many behaviors that would seem clearly to be habits are not distinctive.

Schutz v. La Costita III, Inc.

256 Or. App. 573 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 2013

“REPRESENTATIVE SHETTERLY: And clearly it’s not, because the greater risk is they’re going to go out and hurt somebody else, in which case then the bar owner is still liable. … In that case, the court held that, because the defendant would have been immune from an action at common law in 1857 due to sovereign immunity, a legislative limit on liability did not violate Article I, section 10.