Case law

Harper v. Washburn

308 Or. App. 244 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 2020

As such, OEC 613 might be conceptualized as distinct from the impeachment sections explicitly referencing credibility, although conceptually it is clearly related. … Washburn Despite the broad type of impeachment evidence permissible, it is not readily apparent that the evidence here qualifies.

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.

Leong's, Inc. v. Oregon State Lottery Commission

142 Or. App. 460 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 31, 1996

The basis of the denial was explained as follows: “[We have] determined that you do not qualify as a Video Lottery retailer under OAR 177-100-060 and OAR 177-040-010 for the following reason(s): “A conviction for any gambling … ‘control persons’ of those establishments still have gambling convictions on their records, Petitioners are being treated unfairly by Respondents’ denial.

Watts v. Gerking

111 Or. 641 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1924

It is contended, however, although that fact is not alleged in the complaint, that because the defendant Keator was the duly elected, qualified and acting district attorney for Umatilla County and because the plaintiff had … In the first case cited, the court clearly states the law which, we think, ought, to be controlling here.

Smith v. Di Marco

207 Or. App. 558 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 6, 2006

The second incident clearly qualifies. It involves not just hostile speech, but physical confrontation. Respondent took swings at petitioner and reached in the door to take C away. … The third incident also clearly qualifies. Again, it involved both hostile, threatening language as well as physical confrontation.

Rollins v. McMinnville School District 040

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 27, 2021

The qualified immunity analysis requires a court to address two questions: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff establish a constitutional violation and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established … The Court concludes that because the constitutional rights in question were clearly established, Defendants McIrvin and Fast are not entitled to qualified immunity.

State v. Catholic

75 Or. 367 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1915

But in all prosecutions under this act the burden of proof shall be on the defendant to establish the facts of his citizenship and residence”: Section 5298, L. O. L.) … The qualified ownership of roving fish in navigable waters within a state is in that sovereignty in trust for its citizens alone: State v. Hume, 52 Or. 1, 5 ( 95 Pac. 808 ).

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County

276 Or. App. 282 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 2016

Clearly, it is the focal event that is the primary use, and any associated activities (eating, dancing, lawn games, etc.) are, at best, incidental to the focal event. … The answer in both cases is clearly no. The filming in Smalley, if it occurs, would occur only if there is a wedding on the property.

Fox v. Collins

213 Or. App. 451 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 20, 2007

Finally, subsection (3) establishes that a cause of action otherwise revived by subsection (2) must be “refiled within one year after [January 1, 2004].” Or Laws 2003, ch 768, § 2(3). … Immunity from federal regulation is not gained through forehanded contracts. Were it otherwise, the paramount powers of Congress could be nullified by ‘prophetic discernment.’

Garcia Chavez v. United States of America

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 17, 2023

In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, this Court considers: (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time … To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, it is not enough that a plaintiff shows that a defendant’s conduct amounted to a constitutional violation.10 The specific conduct must violate “clearly established law” such

Smith v. Yanes

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 23, 2024

To overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that Yanes (1) “violated a federal statutory or constitutional right,” and (2) “the unlawfulness of [his] conduct was clearly established at the time.” D.C. v. … Because resolution of these factual disputes is necessary to determine whether Yanes violated Smith’s constitutional rights that were clearly established, Yanes is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified

Kockums Industries Ltd. v. Salem Equipment, Inc.

561 F. Supp. 168 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 23, 1983

Third, that even if the attorney-client privilege is to be vitiated the attorney *171 work product immunity should nevertheless isolate the documents from disclosure. … Tex.1981) (following in camera review, no prima facie case of fraud established).

Steele v. Mt. Hood Meadows Oregon, Ltd.

159 Or. App. 272 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 17, 1999

The governing principles are well-established. See Estey v. MacKenzie Engineering Inc., 324 Or 372, 376-77 , 927 P2d 86 (1996) (summarizing cases). … The court held that that limitation was not sufficient to immunize the company from liability for its own negligence.

State ex rel. Shaw v. Ware

13 Or. 380 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1886

Clearly in the office, and not in the term.” … There is nothing here establishing a term of office to exist between fixed dates of months or years.

State v. Setsor

61 Or. 90 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1911

It must present the conclusions of fact, as established by the evidence.” Section 1548-, L. O. L. … But the defendant has carefully precluded himself from that relief, in the effort to obtain total immunity” — and overruled the motion to discharge. Counsel for defendant cites the case of State v.

Jayne v. State Tax Commission

2 Or. Tax 65 · Oregon Tax Court · Jan 22, 1965

However, the instant case so clearly points up the statutory construction problems presented that a discussion of both issues will clarify the decision in each. … The rules themselves establish this conclusion. Read together they are contradictory and confusing.

De La Cruz Gomez and De La Cruz

342 Or. App. 659 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 20, 2025

At a February 2024 hearing held on the court’s own motion, the trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that youth qualified as a “vulnerable youth.” … Because the trial court’s authority to appoint a guardian results from evidence that the youth is a “vulnera- ble youth” (a condition also listed in ORS 125.305(1)(a)), this sentence clearly describes a precondition for the

United States v. Lewis

284 F. Supp. 3d 1152 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 9, 2018

As previously noted, it is well established within the Ninth Circuit that reckless and negligent offenses fall outside of the ACCA elements clause. See Dixon , 805 F.3d at 1197 ; Parnell , 818 F.3d at 981 n.5. … As Voisine is not "clearly irreconcilable" with Dixon, Lawrence , and Parnell , those earlier Ninth Circuit decisions remain binding on this Court.

Green v. Frederickson

District Court, D. Oregon · May 8, 2020

Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v.

Walters v. PSRB

341 Or. App. 41 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 4, 2025

ORS 161.351(1); ORS 161.346(1)(a);.2 1 Our conclusion that the PSRB failed to establish that petitioner has a quali- fying mental disorder obviates the need to address petitioner’s second assignment of error, arguing … Based on my review of the more recent record those issues that were present at the time have—have clearly resolved and adjust- ment disorder is not a cyclic disorder.