Case law

California Table Grape Commission v. Health Division

109 Or. App. 226 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 1991

ORS 616.073(3)(a) clearly prohibits the use of sulfites by restaurants. The serving of food previously treated with sulfites by food processors or shippers is not the use of sulfites. … Although ORS 616.077(1) 2 directs the Division to adopt rules necessary to implement the policy established in ORS 616.073, ORS 616.077(2) specifically and clearly exempts licensed food processors from the prohibition against

McGuffin v. Oregon State Police

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 2, 2025

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … For example, after asserting the Chief Reaves’ conduct did not violate McGuffin’s constitutional rights, the Municipal Defendants argue that Reaves is entitled to qualified immunity because “there is no clearly established

AGG Enterprises, Inc. v. Washington County, Or.

145 F. Supp. 2d 1215 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 29, 2001

The party challenging the regulation must establish that the burden on interstate commerce clearly outweighs the local benefits arising from the regulation. Id. … Article I, § 20 of the Oregon Constitution is an equal privileges and immunities clause that scrutinizes benefits in the form of privileges and immunities given to a particular class, rather than discrimination against a

Richard v. Slate

239 Or. 164 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1964

In the petition it is alleged that ‘the plaintiff is the duly acting and qualified administratrix of the estate of Max Pearson, deceased.’ … ORS 30.020 clearly requires that a personal representative must bring the action and this is as much a condition as that the action be commenced within the two year period.

Oregon Entertainment Corp. v. City of Beaverton

172 Or. App. 361 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 7, 2001

As will be explained, [the] Council’s decision is based on an evaluation of the existing use, similar uses and other area establishments.” … of criterion 3 as being concerned with “potential for criminal activity” 3 and its related finding about the increased problems with nighttime crime prevention in proximity to the Fantasy Video location, the evidence is clearly

McIntire v. Forbes

322 Or. 426 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1996

Each Petitioner Qualifies As An “Interested Person,” With Standing. … Black, 5 Ind 557, 573 (1855) (holding that part of an act was “clearly in conflict with [the one-subject requirement] and void”). 8 *437 Consistent with that established Indiana case law, the Oregon case law through the generations

Kennedy v. Eden Advanced Pest Technologies

222 Or. App. 431 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 1, 2008

Rea prescribed dietary restrictions, injection therapy, nutrient therapy, heat therapy, massage and exercise therapy, and immune therapy. … Again, those kinds of conflicts between qualified experts go to the weight to be given to plaintiffs evidence and not its admissibility.

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians v. Employment Department

165 Or. App. 65 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 12, 2000

Coquille Indian Tribe, 327 Or 318, 321 , 963 P2d 638 (1998) (Indian tribes may expressly waive their sovereign immunity). … Subsection (4) established that state and local government employing units are “employers.”

State v. Ramirez

312 Or. App. 117 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 3, 2021

Two, the state can establish, under ORS 813.010(1)(b) or (c), that the driver was, at the time of driving, “under the influence” of one or more intoxicants. … The court’s reference to RCW 46.61.5249 was in passing and clearly intended only as a contrasting example of an offense that, unlike the offense for which the defendant had previously been convicted, did involve alco- hol

Updike v. City of Gresham

99 F. Supp. 3d 1279 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 24, 2015

To establish a claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that he or she: (1) “is an individual with a disability”; (2) “is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of some public entity’s services, programs … To establish a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show that he or she: (1) is “handicapped within the meaning of the [Rehabilitation Act]”; (2) is “otherwise qualified for the benefits or services sought

Joseph v. Utah Home Fire Insurance

106 Or. App. 505 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 10, 1991

To me, these facts very clearly spell out a “family” situation, and Tanisha is a “member” of that family. … Clearly, the non-formalized family is a reality today. It is as close as the family next door.

Woodford v. Olcott

104 Or. 437 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1922

The established law applicable to the issuance of a writ of niandamus in cases analogous to the one here involved is aptly stated in American Casualty Ins. Co. v. Fyler, 60 Conn. 448, 459 ( 22 Atl. 494 , 25 Am. St. … The rule is stated very clearly by Mr. Justice Bradley in United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U. S. 40 [ 32 L. Ed. 354 , 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 12, see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes].

State v. Wilson

20 Or. App. 553 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 10, 1975

This exception is limited to evidence only of the making of the complaint, however, and does not immunize testimony relating the details of any such declaration. State v. … established rule that the witness cannot state the identity of the alleged assailant.

Reagan v. EOCI

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 11, 2021

Tackett and Officer Johnson are entitled to qualified immunity. … “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.

Toney v. Medford Police Department

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 9, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To determine whether a government actor is entitled to qualified immunity, the court evaluates, in no particular order, whether: (1) the alleged misconduct violated a right; and (2) that right was clearly established at

Stonebrink v. Highland Motors, Inc.

171 Or. 415 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1943

Clearly, there is substantial evidence that plaintiff, in procuring the jack, relied upon the judgment of the *424 seller. … The trial court properly held that Paulson was qualified to testify as an expert.

Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc.

356 Or. 543 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 18, 2014

First, the court observed that the release “clearly and unequivocally” expressed defendant’s intent to disclaim liability for negligence. Id. at 550 Bagley v. Mt.  … Harper, 306 Or 347, 349-50, 759 P2d 253 (1988), the court abolished interspousal immunity, holding ‘that the common-law rule of interspousal immunity is no longer available in this state to bar negligence actions

Douglas v. Pearlstein

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 29, 2023

“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. … At minimum, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Honstein v. Metro West Ambulance Service, Inc.

193 Or. App. 457 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 2004

Defendant had no burden to establish -undue hardship unless plaintiff could establish a reasonable accommodation. … The court’s instruction correctly, clearly, and concisely instructed the jury as to what a reasonable accommodation was. The jury decided that plaintiff never established the existence of one.

Pacific First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Department of Revenue

8 Or. Tax 466 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 17, 1980

"The Committee believes that the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is eminently qualified to assume this task [of study and preparation of recommendations to Congress] since the Commission members include … Tax Commission, 392 US 339 , 88 S Ct 2173 , 20 L Ed2d 1138 (1968), in which he wrote that the fact that institutions owe their existence to (are chartered by) the federal government must be rejected as a basis for tax immunity