Case law

NewSun Energy, LLC v. PUC

346 Or. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 22, 2026

: “(a) Establish safety and operating requirements nec- essary to adequately protect all systems, facilities and equipment of the electric utility and qualifying facility; “(b) Be consistent with applicable … ORS 758.535(2) (“The terms and conditions for the purchase of energy or energy capacity from a qualifying facility shall: (a) Be established by rule by the commission if the purchase is by a public utility[.]”).

McDonald v. Shelton

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 15, 2021

that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages.” Wood v.

Yela Fiduciary Services, LLC v. Benton County

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 28, 2023

; and (2) whether that constitutional right was “clearly established.” … And preexisting law clearly establishes that a government official violates the Constitution when they fail to provide sufficient medical care to a detained person. San Diego Cnty v.

Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County

285 Or. App. 267 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 3, 2017

qualify as such lodgings? … The lock-off rooms are not part of an establishment that provides services or hospitality associated with hotels or motels.

Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

118 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 8, 2000

Is the Corps immune from such a suit? The Corps asserts that it cannot be sued under § 1365(a)(2) because it has sovereign immunity. … The P.E.A.C.H. court found that subsection (a)(2) specifically refers to the Administrator of the EPA, but does not “clearly and unambiguously waive sovereign immunity in regard to the Army Corps of Engineers.” 87 F.3d at

Landswick v. Lane

49 Or. 408 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1907

The only question arising on the appeal is whether other laborers than those not citizens of the United States, who have declared their intention to become such, are eligible for employment by the city without establishing … Also, we have the two relatives connected by “and,” namely, “who has not declared his intention to become such,” and “who has not resided within the city for one year,” clearly referring to the same antecedent. “ ‘And who

Moro v. State of Oregon

Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 30, 2015

Petitioners further argue that the amend- ments violate the state Equal Privileges or Immunities Clause, Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution, the federal Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article IV, section … Thus, the legislature clearly intended that the 1995 offset would not be contractual.

Howell v. Bain

176 Or. 187 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1945

Howell to fill such vacancy until his successor was elected and qualified. Judge Howell accepted the appointment and duly qualified for the office. … As is so clearly stated in 29 C. J.

Corliss v. Van Duzer

132 Or. 265 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1929

"II "That at all the times hereinafter mentioned a certain highway leading from Roseburg in Douglas county to Coos bay was one of the duly established public highways of the state of Oregon under the exclusive management … "This immunity rests upon obvious considerations of public policy, the necessities of the public service and the perplexities and embarrassments of a contrary doctrine.

Loiseau v. Dept. of Human Resources of State of Or.

567 F. Supp. 1211 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 8, 1983

Plaintiff was and is well qualified for promotion. Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of disparate treatment. Defendants articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the denial of promotion. … Nor must plaintiff prove that he would have been the most qualified person for the job. Wang, supra. The criteria established for disparate treatment cases by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

ANA International, Inc. v. Way

242 F. Supp. 2d 906 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 6, 2002

Based on the evidence submitted, it cannot be concluded that the beneficiary will be primarily employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. … Neither interpretation, however, is clearly the correct one.

DC Thompson and Co. v. Hauge

300 Or. 651 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1986

Both parts are qualified by the introduction to ORCP 64B., which states that the cause upon which a motion for a new trial is raised must materially affect the substantial rights of the party so moving. … Clearly, affidavits relevant to the facts of the instant case would be those of the jurors. Here there were no such affidavits provided, except that of defense counsel.

Spang v. Department of Revenue

16 Or. Tax 166 · Oregon Tax Court · Nov 4, 1999

ANALYSIS Oregon law exempts the income of certain qualifying American Indians from state income tax. … Plaintiff clearly does not live on land set aside for the residence of tribal Indians under federal protection, as required by the state’s administrative rule (OAR 150-316.777(2)), as set out above.

State v. Langley

314 Or. 247 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1992

The statute also violates the vagueness, due process, equal protection and privileges and immunities guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” … Defendant asserts that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to establish the torture charge.

Kuhn ex rel. Kuhn v. Department of Human Services

283 Or. App. 695 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 15, 2017

Although petitioner expressed her dissatisfaction with the annual plan below, she did not clearly raise, and the ALJ did not address, the issue that she now raises. … as a matter of law that the trips qualify as social benefits.

State v. St. Hilaire

97 Or. App. 108 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 1989

He was clearly qualified to do that. Moreover, because most of the children whom he had interviewed were known to have been abused, there was a low potential for error in his observations. … The court qualified the admissibility of expert testimony on the “sex abuse syndrome” in Milbradt .

Whitehead v. Fagan

369 Or. 112 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2021

Judge DeHoog dissented, interpreting this court’s decision in Sajo to establish only a necessary, but not nec- essarily sufficient, requirement for a person to be a “quali- fied voter[ ]” entitled to sign a petition. … But this eli- gibility to vote on election day may not necessarily be a suf- ficient condition for signing a petition, because article IV, section 1(4)(a) clearly contemplates that eligibility as a ‘qualified

State v. Couch

341 Or. 612 · 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).

Greyhound Park v. Oregon Racing Commission

215 Or. 76 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1958

The act clearly requires a separate application for each race meet. This is the contemporaneous construction of the act by the commission. … It is obvious that petitioner would receive no benefit from the issuance now of a license to conduct a race meet in 1955. *79 This court has consistently followed the well-established rule that it will not consider an appeal

Summerfield v. Or. Liquor Control Comm'n

294 Or. App. 415 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 17, 2018

The court stated, "I think her testimony is clearly inadmissible and I'm not going to allow it." *417 Plaintiff presented, as part of his case, the testimony of his treating psychologist concerning detrimental effects that … OLCC argues, among other things, that the trial court correctly excluded Curry-Stevens's testimony because plaintiff failed to establish its scientific validity under Brown and O'Key .