Case law

Croshaw v. Koninklijke Nedlloyd, B. v. Rijswijk

398 F. Supp. 1224 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 31, 1975

They impose higher compensation payments upon the stevedore, but immunize him from redemption actions by the vessel. … If notice is not provided and the stevedore’s lien is determined to qualify him for intervention of right, he may be able to intervene even after final judgment.

Kilminster v. Day Management Corp.

133 Or. App. 159 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 22, 1995

In this case, the statutory source of the immunity is ORS 656.018. … In both cases, clearly there is no legal bar to bringing the action, but in both, the statutory immunity could be raised as a defense.

Hoge v. Korn

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 9, 2021

Plaintiff does not provide a basis for his objection to Judge Russo’s recommended finding that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Judge Russo’s recommended finding on qualified immunity, therefore, is reviewed for clear error.

Kane v. City of Beaverton

202 Or. App. 431 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 2, 2005

In other districts, all qualified voters were entitled to vote on board membership. In still other districts, school board members were appointed. … Other reasons are to improve administrative efficiency or provide municipal services more efficiently. * * * [I]t is not hard to imagine that in most if not all cases, establishing city rather than county jurisdiction over

State Ex Rel Northwest Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Wilcox

10 Or. Tax 181 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 11, 1985

Petitioner believes that the property used by the hospital laboratories does not qualify for property tax exemption because of the laboratories’ outside work. … Knowing that exemptions are strictly construed and that those who seek to have their property exempt must clearly bring themselves within the exemption and, further, that the party claiming exemption has the burden of proof

Norgren v. PSRB

344 Or. App. 617 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 5, 2025

is considered to have a qualifying mental disorder. … But a mere “possibility” that cannot be “discounted” is insufficient to establish “danger” based on a mental disorder that is in remission.

Campbell v. Aldrich

159 Or. 208 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1938

It is also equally well established that the intention of the legis *214 lature thus to create contractual obligations, resulting in extinguishment to a certain extent of governmental powers, must clearly and unmistakably … It is unquestionably the function of government to establish and maintain public schools.

Lowes v. Thompson

374 Or. 23 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 17, 2025

court explained that, when the parties contractually agreed not to make disparaging statements, “they necessarily waived the rights—constitu- tional and statutory—to make them, even if those state- ments would otherwise qualify … a building per- mit provided a “substantial basis in fact and law” for developer’s claim (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)); Pennsbury Village, 608 Pa at 325, 11 A3d at 916 (holding that defendant was not immune

State v. Yock

49 Or. App. 749 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 1980

If any of the three is not established, the statutory claim under this subsection fails. State v. Knowles, supra. … Clearly defendant was not prosecuted twice for a single offense. The issue then is whether multiple prosecutions for separate offenses offends Article I, § 12. In State v.

Howell v. Boyle

Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2013

But it concluded that such a “new balance” was clearly within the legislature’s authority, notwithstanding the limitations of the remedy clause. Id. In Neher v. … harm qualifying as a legal injury remain liable.

VanDyke

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 12, 2026

entitled to “qualified immunity if their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Because sovereign immunity goes to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case, and qualified immunity speaks to the merits, the court declines to address this argument.

Norwood v. Washington County

239 Or. App. 542 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 2010

Plaintiffs argue that the summary judgment record before the court established that there are issues of fact about whether they qualify for a vested right and that they are not precluded from obtaining that relief as a matter … ‘When the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action was clearly based on a determination of the merits of the claim, however, our practice has been to review that determination as a matter of law and then remand for the

Holdner v. Columbia County

51 Or. App. 605 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 13, 1981

The road repairs themselves were clearly discrete acts which ended more than two years before plaintiff brought his action and 180 days before he presented his notice. … It was not error for the trial court to strike the discretionary immunity defense.

Shelley v. Shelley

223 Or. 328 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1960

It is probably fair to say that the duties created by the marriage relation, at least as they are evaluated upon the termination of the marriage, are conceived of as more qualified than those arising out of the paternal relationship … For the reasons heretofore stated, the beneficiary’s in: terest in the corpus is not made immune from these claims.

State ex rel. Frohnmayer v. Freeman

131 Or. App. 336 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 16, 1994

. *343 Plaintiff also argues that defendants ‘ ‘failed to prove that OBCE’s action immunized them from UTPA liability.” … To be viable, the defense need not be sufficient to establish that OBCE’s action can or has immunized defendants from any possible exposure to UTPA liability — a proposition that we effectively rejected in Investigators,

Huffman and Wright Logging Co. v. Wade

317 Or. 445 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1993

Robertson, supra, this court established a framework for evaluating whether a law violates Article I, section 8. … But in this case we have found no other conduct that could qualify as this tort. ’ ’ Hall v. The May Dept. Stores, supra, 292 Or at 146-47 (citation omitted). Lewis v.

State v. Childs

252 Or. 91 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1968

‘I’ll put the fire out, honey.’ ” The above-quoted material clearly demonstrates the kind of appetite to which the book is designed to appeal. … Under proper instructions, the jury is qualified to weigh a particular book or movie.

Society of St. Vincent DePaul v. Department of Revenue

14 Or. Tax 47 · Oregon Tax Court · Oct 16, 1996

To succeed on a claim of estoppel, taxpayer must establish: “(1) misleading conduct, (2) good faith reliance on that conduct, and (3) injury to the party claiming estoppel.” Sayles v. … Clearly this situation does not call for estoppel. Taxpayer’s pleas do not fall on deaf ears. It is a charitable organization and the property would have qualified if taxpayer had filed the application timely.

Chaperon v. Portland Electric Co.

41 Or. 39 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1902

It so qualifies the act as to render it actionable, and the allegation is treated as a statement of an ultimate fact, rather than a mere conclusion of law. 2. … Other instructions requested were clearly covered by the general charge. There being no error in the record, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed, and it is so ordered. Affirmed.

Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2023

We further reject plaintiff’s argument regarding the privileges and immunities clause. … way of necessity is established.”