Case law

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.

Schlichting v. Bergstrom

13 Or. App. 562 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 27, 1973

Cooper, 256 Or 485 , 475 P2d 78 , 45 ALR3d 857 (1970), defendants contend they are immune from suit because the discharge decision plaintiff challenges was a discretionary act. This is frivolous. … Rather, it appears that the court has used the term “arbitrary” as a shorthand way of expressing violation of clearly established substantive constitutional rights. The court’s illustrations so indicate.

Smith v. Brannan

152 Or. App. 505 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 18, 1998

Chester’s will established marital and residual trusts and gave Doris a general power of appointment over the assets of the marital trust. … Furthermore, we agree that applying the presumptive intent to the provision in Chester’s 1988 will would be contrary to his clearly expressed intentions.

Bondick v. Mitchell Sanchez

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 30, 2023

Mitchell Sanchez’s medical decisions, and thus clearly relate to the Board’s official actions. … Congress found it necessary to provide qualified immunity from damages actions for hospitals, doctors, and others who participate in the professional review process.

Thunderbird Mobile Club, LLC v. City of Wilsonville

234 Or. App. 457 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 24, 2010

Plaintiff also alleged: “The adoption and threatened enforcement of the Ordinancefs] by the City of Wilsonville acting under color of law and ordinance, deprives the Plaintiff of its rights, privileges and immunities secured … A companion amendment amended Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution that “reserved” the initiative and referendum powers of voters for state laws to “further reserve[ ] to the qualified voters of each municipality

Sanders v. Vigor Fab, LLC

308 Or. App. 282 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 2020

Consequently, Vigor Fab was, like Vigor Marine, immune from tort liabil- ity and plaintiff’s case was dismissed as barred by section 905 of the LHWCA. … The undisputed evidence in the summary judg- ment record before us establishes that Vigor Fab and Vigor Marine operations are sufficiently interrelated to meet the single entity test.

Nicolynn Properties LLC v. Dept. of Rev.

21 Or. Tax 320 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 30, 2013

The May 1, 2012, notice also clearly set forth the appeal time applicable to the adverse action. 3 The court’s reference to requirements prior to the date of notice addresses several arguments of taxpayer regarding … Taxpayer asserts that the record does not establish when this occurred. 4 The rule does not establish, as a matter of fact, when the roll was actu- ally corrected.

Schoene v. Oregon Department of Human Services

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 24, 2025

The issue of qualified immunity, however, is tied to the facts of the given case and when considering qualified immunity “[w]here disputed facts exist,” a court “assum[es] that the version of the material facts asserted … immunity against that claim, unless Defendants withdraw at this time their argument asserting qualified immunity.

State v. Blacker

234 Or. 131 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1963

WEISER, the duly elected, qualified and acting District Attorney for Polk County, State of Oregon, and in the name of, and by the authority of, the State of Oregon, informs the Court that the said JAMES L. … However, an examination of the opinions of that state discloses that without discussion of the problem a rule of procedure was established by judicial fiat.

Burke v. Oxford House of Oregon Chapter V

341 Or. 82 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 22, 2006

Defendant Oxford House-Ramona is an individual Oxford House residence, established under the Oxford House Chapter V charter. … The Oxford House memorandum clearly illustrates that defendants structure their lease arrangements to avoid application of the landlord-tenant laws.

Luster v. North Coast Transportation Co.

128 Or. 650 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1929

The witness was qualified to express an opinion. He had been an automobile mechanic for several years, had *654 driven antostages and repaired Westingkouse air-brakes, such as were used on tbe stage in' question. … Considering tbe charge in its entirety, it fully and clearly states the issues. Tbe judgment of tbe lower court is affirmed. Affirmed. Coshow, C. J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Meyer v. Bradbury

205 Or. App. 297 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 2006

Instead, it would adhere to the more recent line of cases “as being more clearly reasoned and stating the correct rule.” Id. at 471 . … “Second, IP #8 would have the effect of amending Article IV, section 1 by establishing new hurdles for the Legislature to amend or enact laws related to campaign finance.

State v. Cornell

304 Or. 27 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1987

much is clear from the legislature’s use of the term, and a jury may be instructed accordingly. 3 Not every infliction of intense physical pain, even through an intentional act known by the actor to be intensely painful, qualifies … The same authority defines torment thus: ‘To subject to excruciating bodily or mental suffering.’ ” As already indicated, we find the same methodology satisfactory in establishing a constitutionally permissible interpretation

Great American Insurance v. General Insurance Co. of America

257 Or. 62 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1970

The action against the commission was dismissed on the basis of sovereign immunity, but a judgment was entered against O’Neil, plaintiff’s insured, for $18,094. … The contract between the commission and O’Neil clearly establishes that the commission through its engineer retained the right to control all phases of the project, including everything from clearing and grubbing, sprinkling

State v. Manrique

271 Or. 201 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1975

The decision by that court, however, would appear to leave the “balancing” of these considerations to the discretion of the trial judge in each case, subject to reversal only if “clearly wrong.” … As also stated by McCormick, supra at 451, § 190, “a need to prove identity is not ordinarily of itself a ticket of admission,” although the evidence may qualify under some other exception, such as that commonly referred

Walsh v. Gaffney

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 9, 2020

Qualified Immunity Government officials may be entitled to qualified immunity for claims brought under § 1983. … Defendants Gaffney and Rodriguez are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. II.

Lichau v. Baldwin

166 Or. App. 411 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 5, 2000

The state never produced records establishing that petitioner took any leave or liberty during June 1989. … “This evidence clearly has a tendency to affect the result of the prosecution of the case.”

Freeman v. Schwartz

District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 13, 2023

Defendants argue that Lieutenant Washburn is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity. … 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

Bank of Oregon v. Independent News, Inc.

65 Or. App. 29 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 12, 1983

The trial court’s written order denying the motion was clearly predicated only on the substantive issue. … It noted: “As to providing a remedy for harm done by the impact of words as such, article I, section 8 does not immunize a speaker or writer against civil liability to another person ‘by due course of law for injury done

Albright v. Keats Auto Co.

85 Or. 134 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1917

After using these *137 words the court directed the attention of the jury to the physical and mental suffering of plaintiff, her loss of time and expenses, qualifying each reference by the words “if any.” … The injuries of plaintiff were clearly ‘defined by the testimony; there was no suggestion by any witness that she was liable by reason of the accident to uncertain physical ills in the future.