Case law

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.

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.

Walker v. Portland Public School No. 1J

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 12, 2022

“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. … The plaintiff bears the burden of showing the right was clearly established. Id.

Farris v. Johnson

222 Or. App. 377 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 24, 2008

Rather, a petitioner can generally establish that a respondent was aware that a contact was unwanted by establishing that the respondent was “subjectively * * * aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the contacts … Because respondent *383 had been served with a temporary SPO, he clearly was aware that the contact with petitioner’s husband was unwanted. The next question is whether the contact alarmed petitioner.

Nakashima v. Board of Education

204 Or. App. 535 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 15, 2006

The statute prohibits discrimination in hiring and employment of otherwise qualified disabled persons. ORS 659A.112(1). … to have “implied a concern under the Establishment Clause.”

Whitaker v. Steward

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 7, 2025

are barred by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields an official sued in their individual capacity from damages in a civil suit "so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Corey v. Department of Land Conservation & Development

210 Or. App. 542 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 31, 2007

Subparagraphs (B) and (C) clearly do not apply, because DLCD did not have authority to suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew anything. … The court held that the claimant had a protected property interest in the benefits, even though he had not fully qualified for them.

Hibbard v. Henderson

44 Or. 318 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1904

Congress is authorized to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States: Constitution United States, Art. I, § 8. … in the name of the payee, knowing at the time that it had been discounted; and, the bank to which the note was assigned having no notice or actual knowledge of the proceedings, it was held that the discharge afforded no immunity

Nilsson v. Baker County, Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 21, 2022

“A government officer is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff's rights were not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.” Ballentine, 28 F.4th at 64. … As to qualified immunity, “[t]he law is clearly established that a search may not exceed the scope of the search warrant.” KRL v. Moore, 384 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). B.

Estate of William B Hanington v. Multnomah County

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 23, 2022

Clearly Established Right In their discussion of qualified immunity, the Haningtons do not mention the supervisory defendants at all. See Resp. to Mot. for Summ. J. [ECF 63] at 25-27. … Even if Deputy Kame’s actions were unconstitutional, their unconstitutionality was in no way clearly established. Thus, Deputy Kame is entitled to qualified immunity. D.

Clarkston v. Bridge

21 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 7, 1975

Under the factual situation at bar, respondent *3 could only have the paternity of her child adjudicated in a URESA proceeding if Oregon’s URESA qualified under ORS 109.070(5) as an “other provision, of law” by which paternity … may be established.

Myers v. Cessna Aircraft Corporation

275 Or. 501 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1976

They established the level of icing as extending from about 8,500 feet to over 17,000 feet. … On appeal defendant contends, first, that Jensen was adequately qualified to express an opinion as to the cause of the crash, and, second, that even if Jensen did not qualify as an expert in this area, plaintiff’s motion

Benassi v. Georgia-Pacific

62 Or. App. 698 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 27, 1983

The trial court ruled that defendant had established a qualified privilege, and that ruling is not challenged. … Restatement (Second) Torts, § 575, comment b at 198. *706 Plaintiffs first allegation of damage clearly alleges special harm, and the question is whether there was evidence that River’s speech was a substantial factor in

Department of Revenue v. Clark

17 Or. Tax 218 · Oregon Tax Court · Oct 6, 2003

Taxpayer has no common-law immunity, because his liability for income tax, or exemption therefrom, is entirely a matter of statute. … satisfied on facts submitted by taxpayer. 7 This discussion relates only to taxpayer’s particular situation and is not intended to suggest that the department must establish a basis for rejecting any particular withholding

Daniels v. Cleaver

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 27, 2020

“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. … Cleaver are entitled to qualified immunity.

State v. Maybee

235 Or. App. 292 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 2010

Accordingly, the trial court concluded that “[t]he legislature clearly intended that defendant’s sales are subject to the provisions of ORS 180.440.” … , in the Qualifying Escrow Act, a system whereby those manufacturers would be required to “establish a reserve fund to guarantee a source of compensation and to prevent such manufacturers from deriving large, short-term profits

Plumeau v. Yamhill County School District 40

907 F. Supp. 1423 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 14, 1995

However, on sua sponte reconsideration, the panel vacated its earlier decision and determined that it need not reach the “affirmative duty” issue because the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity in any event: [T … The opinion is fully reaffirmed, however, on the holding that there was no constitutional duty clearly established at the time of the sexual assault, so the defendant officials were properly entitled to qualified immunity

Whitehead v. Clarno

308 Or. App. 268 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 2020

“The requirement that electors must be eligible to vote at the time they sign initiative petitions is long and well established. [See] Sajo, 297 Or [at] 660. … Paulus, 297 Or 646, 653-54, 688 P2d 367 (1984), that decision established only a necessary, but not invariably sufficient, requirement for a person to be a “qualified voter” entitled to sign a petition under Article IV, section