Case law

State v. Langan

301 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1986

Hitchcock, 142 US 547, 563-85 , 12 S Ct 195 , 35 L Ed 1110 (1892). 4 The prosecution in this case had been completed *6 when defendant was convicted, and he was immune from further jeopardy for the same offense. … Neither extreme seems consistent with the legislative objective to free the qualified applicant who has completed his sentence from the stigma of a prior conviction, particularly in finding work.

State ex inf. Tongue v. Gilbert

66 Or. 434 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1913

The one was new territory which had never been subjected to municipal government; the other, contiguous municipalities already established. … Johns case is clearly distinguishable from the present one. .

Saula v. City of Newport

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 26, 2024

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Evans v. Deacon

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 30, 2021

Olvera is entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S.

Robinette v. SAIF

369 Or. 767 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 3, 2022

In SAIF’s view, ORS 656.214 and the surrounding statutes that govern awards for permanent partial disability clearly demonstrate that findings of loss that are unrelated to the compensa- ble injury do not qualify as impairment … But those losses fail to qualify as “impairment.”

Crosby v. Portland Ry. Co.

53 Or. 496 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1909

or knowledge of the particular facts therein questioned might lessen the weight to be given to his testimony, it would not affect the competency of a witness otherwise qualified. … Moreover, the “car track” as here used clearly has reference to the space necessarily covered by defendant’s cars in passing: Potter v. Leviton, 199 Ill. 93 ( 64 N. E. 1029 ); Delaware Can. Co. v. Whitehall, 90 N.

McDougal v. U.S. Forest Service

195 F. Supp. 2d 1229 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 15, 2002

The team also established a goal of having improved individual park and wilderness fire management plans in effect by May 1989. … Management Ignited Fires: Those ignited by qualified Forest Service officers. These are referred to as management ignited prescribed fires. Wildfire: is defined as any fire not meeting a prescribed fire definition.

Smith v. Dept. of Corrections

300 Or. App. 309 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 2019

“In order to invoke the jurisdiction of any court[,] a party must allege such facts as are necessary to establish that the court has jurisdiction to act.” State ex rel Sweere v. … None of those pro- visions, on their face, fall clearly within the definition of a rule and, in his opening brief, petitioner offers nothing other than a highly generalized and conclusory argument on the point: “The legal

Peterson v. Valley Packing Co.

202 Or. 489 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1954

They merely provide facilities for temporary care and disposition of livestock by well-established commercial methods. They are not livestock homes; they are merely “livestock hotels”. … Justice Warner so clearly pointed out in our former opinion, interstate commerce is a practical conception to be determined upon consideration of established facts and known commercial methods. In Stafford v.

Northwest Public Communications Council v. Oregon Public Utility Commission

805 F. Supp. 2d 1058 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 27, 2011

Eleventh Amendment Immunity. … Kitzhaber establishes the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a lawsuit against PUC in federal court. 328 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir.2003).

Mercy Medical Center, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

12 Or. Tax 305 · Oregon Tax Court · Oct 21, 1992

Particularly was this true in relation to the establishment of hospitals, which, under frontier conditions, were greatly needed, and public policy encouraged their establishment by exempting their property from taxation where … they could, even in a slight degree, qualify as charitable institutions.

Pruitt v. Muldrick

39 Or. 353 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1901

Laws, is exclusive, and supersedes the action which formerly obtained for the purpose of establishing a claim against the estate of a deceased person, but the. position is untenable. … The judgment rendered by the county court indicates quite clearly that the result was not arrived at upon *359 the merits of the controversy, which involved the question whether the claim was just and proper to be paid by

Roberts v. Gray's Crane & Rigging, Inc.

73 Or. App. 29 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 3, 1985

In George, the court stated that the freedom to contract is not an absolute, but a qualified right, and is therefore subject to reasonable restraint in the interest of the public. … Hence, the balance established by the 1927 Act was disrupted.

Ex parte Kerby

103 Or. 612 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1922

These cases establish that provisions of the Constitution may be repealed by implication. … State is reviewed by the author in Jame-son on Constitutional Conventions (4 ed.), Sections 551a, 552, 553, 554, 555, wherein it is clearly pointed out that the decision is erroneous and based upon fallacious reasoning, and

State v. Couch

341 Or. 610 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 9, 2006

Under that definition, the state argues, "wildlife" clearly would include the deer species named in the challenged information. … As we have established, however, that premise cannot be squared with the plain text of the term's definition in ORS 496.004(19).

Jury Service Resource Center v. De Muniz

340 Or. 423 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 27, 2006

under the Oregon Public Records Law, ORS 192.410 to 192.505, and their arguments under the Oregon Constitution, including Article I, section 8 (free speech), section 10 (open courts), and section 20 (equal privileges and immunities … If the particular proceeding in question passes these tests of experience and logic, a qualified First Amendment right of public access attaches.

Koller v. Schmaing

254 Or. App. 115 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 19, 2012

You’re not qualified in this state to represent Companion Pet Clinic— “DR. ROLLER: That’s correct. “THE COURT: —82nd Street, LLC. “DR. ROLLER: That’s correct. … shall be immune from an action for civil damages as a result thereof.”

Bertsch v. Department of Land Conservation & Development

252 Or. App. 319 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 19, 2012

As previously noted, section 6(6)(f) provides: “To qualify for a home site approval under this section, * * * the claimant must establish that: * * * * “(f) On the claimant’s acquisition date, the claimant lawfully was permitted … In light of *326 CDC section 430-37.2A and the record in this case, the state contends, the answer is clearly “no.”

U S West Communications, Inc. v. TCG Oregon

35 F. Supp. 2d 1237 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 1998

Regardless of what other remedies U S West is seeking, it clearly seeks review of the Agreement as provided under the Act. … services, such as the charge a customer pays to have telephone service established.

Simpson Timber Co. v. Great Salt Lake Minerals & Chemicals Corp.

296 F. Supp. 243 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 11, 1969

The flume was constructed *245 through the joint efforts of four parties : the defendant, a Delaware corporation qualified to do business in Utah, the owner of the flume; the plaintiff, a Washington corporation qualified … Thus, the first criterion is clearly met. 2) Did the cause of action arise out of the business transaction ? It did.