Case law

Smith v. Popham

266 Or. 625 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1973

The law is well established that a voluntary conveyance of property made by a debtor in. anticipation of a suit against him is a badge of fraud. 1 Moore on Fraudulent Conveyances 238, § 7 (1908); *631 37 Am Jur 2d 702, Fraudulent … The record clearly establishes—■ and apparently plaintiff does not disagree—that Prouty was a bona fide purchaser for value of the two-acre parcel.

Sanok v. Grimes

294 Or. 684 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1983

The corresponding regulation provides that to qualify as forest land, either the land must have at least a poor stock of established seedlings or the owner must be making a reasonable effort toward reforestation as indicated … Tortious misconduct of the assessors, however heinous, does not qualify plaintiffs land for that tax status.

Kerr v. Bradbury

193 Or. App. 304 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 5, 2004

Their general purposes are fairly well-established. … In a city, not more than 15 percent of the qualified voters may be required to propose legislation by the initiative, and not more than 10 percent of the qualified voters may be required to order a referendum on legislation

Norman v. Wellpath, LLC

District Court, D. Oregon · May 13, 2022

Clearly Established Right Even if Norman could prove Dep. Brooks acted with deliberate indifference, Dep. Brooks would be protected by qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Right To defeat qualified immunity, Norman again relies on Clement and its progeny. Oral Arg. Tr. [ECF 191] at 52:25–53:1.

State v. Hogeland

285 Or. App. 108 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 2017

McGarvey explained to defendant that “[T]he crime has already been established. * * * I establish the person and what they’ve committed at what level.” … In this case, defendant does not suggest that McGarvey expressly promised him .immunity from prosecution in exchange for a confession.

Daramola v. State

294 Or. App. 455 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 17, 2018

Kentucky , 559 U.S. 356 , 364, 130 S.Ct. 1473 , 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), his criminal defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to inform petitioner, clearly and without equivocation, that conviction of the … However, the record does not establish that the letter was the only advice as to asylum provided. To the contrary, it establishes the converse.

State v. Roselair

57 Or. 8 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1910

If it was extorted by threats, or induced by a promise of immunity from the penalty prescribed for the crime, or prompted by an assurance of a mitigation of the punishment, the confession is inadmissible. 2. … A qualified physician may be allowed by a court to assert an opinion from an examination made of a defendant subsequent to the commission of a crime as to whether or not the person accused thereof was sane or insane at the

Olsen v. Deschutes County

204 Or. App. 7 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 25, 2006

under statutes establishing workers’ compensation remedies as exclusive, exhaustion requirements, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish an assault. … That language establishes that the legislature clearly and affirmatively expressed its intention that the statutory claim not supersede common-law claims. *17 Further, the legislative history indicates an intent to preserve

McCune v. Oregon Senior Services Division

643 F. Supp. 1444 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 9, 1986

The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Murphy, 626 F.2d 633, 640 (9th Cir.1980). … The immunity regulation requires that interpretations be by the Division Administrator, not by an Area Director.

MacLean & Associates, Inc. v. American Guaranty Life Insurance

85 Or. App. 284 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 6, 1987

None of the evidence clearly indicates that either party intended that plaintiff would be obligated to provide any or all of those “optional” services. … We find no basis for concluding that the evidence, taken as a whole, is clearly insufficient to establish plaintiffs claim for lost profits.

Philomath College v. Wyatt

27 Or. 390 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1893

They should have pursued a legal and orderly course, which was clearly open to them. … Austell, 45 Ark. 407 , it was held that “the constitutional provision that ‘no county seat shall be established or changed without the consent of the qualified voters of the county’ means a majority of the qualified voters

Staats v. Newman

164 Or. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 3, 1999

Clearly, the statement is dictum. … Equally clearly, the court was not describing the burden that applies to a water rights proceeding that is controlled by ORS 183.450(3), but, rather, was establishing a contrasting burden that applies “fi]n the circuit court

Brehm v. CATERPILLAR, INC.

235 Or. App. 274 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 2010

There are several factors relevant to establishing an employment relationship under the “right to control test.” … Those factors include “whether the work at issue is a regular part of the employer’s business, whether the work is continuous or intermittent, and whether the duration of the work is such that it qualifies as hiring for a

QBE Insurance v. Creston Court Condominium, Inc.

58 F. Supp. 3d 1137 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 1, 2014

The plaintiff in the underlying case is required to plead facts that establish the defendant’s liability; the plaintiff often is not required to establish the nature of the defendant’s relationship to some other party or … That is, Crestón Court and the Association argue that Shearer applies only when the insured seeks to admit extrinsic evidence to establish that he or she qualifies as an insured.

Mantia v. Hanson

190 Or. App. 412 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 13, 2003

We held that a qualified privilege protected the attorney’s actions. … See id. at 419-20. 11 Hiber was our latest — but clearly not our last — word on the cognizability of tort claims against lawyers and litigants based on their statements or conduct in prosecuting legal proceedings.

Clemens v. United States

295 F. Supp. 1339 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 30, 1968

The instructions included a provision 3 which clearly indicated *1341 that the “fall of the hammer” would not create a present interest in the highest bidder, but that he would be awarded the contract if he was qualified … qualified, responsible, and willing- to accept the contract.” .

Maney v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 8, 2022

“Covered Persons who are afforded liability immunity under [the] Declaration are ‘manufacturers,’ ‘distributors,’ ‘program planners,’ ‘qualified persons,’ and their officials, agents, and employees, as those terms are … Indeed, interpreting the FAD to provide absolute immunity for all COVID-19 vaccine allocation decisions, even if the decision clearly violates the U.S.

Harvey

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 21, 2026

Thus, a court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an “indisputably meritless legal theory” or where the factual contentions are “clearly baseless.” Id. at 327. … To qualify for judicial immunity, a judge must have performed “judicial acts” within the scope of his or her jurisdiction. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356– 57 (1978).

Carroll v. Cupp

49 Or. App. 773 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 1980

It follows that the trial court’s acceptance of one inference, to the exclusion of the other, was immune from re-examination by this court. 2 Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485 , 443 P2d 621 (1968). … Petitioner’s evidence established only that his sentence, not his plea, was the product of inadequate representation.

Howell v. Boyle

353 Or. 359 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2013

Affirming the validity of the immunity provision, the court wrote that *393 “all of our decisions have recognized that a city may be given, not absolute, but conditional immunity from liability for street accidents — conditioned … Later in his concurrence, Justice Linde observed that “the court has allowed legislative immunization of cities from tort liability only on condition that the individuals who are personally responsible for harm qualifying