performance doctrine in Oregon

2026See Brice, 227 Or App at 465-66 (party asserting partial performance exception to statute of frauds Nonprecedential Memo Op: 347 Or App 532 (2026) 537 has burden of persuasion at trial).

2026See Brice, 227 Or App at 465-66 (party asserting partial performance exception to statute of frauds Nonprecedential Memo Op: 347 Or App 532 (2026) 537 has burden of persuasion at trial).

2000Stevens, 154 Or App at 59 n 5.” OTECC, 168 Or App at 475 n 7.

2000Stevens, 154 Or App at 59 n 5.

2019Thus, evidence about the actual process of decision, if not part of the record of the proceeding under review, and evidence about, for example, **327 a particular judge's sentencing practices, should not be considered in the prejudice determination." 466 U.S. at 695 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 .

2019Thus, evidence about the actual process of decision, if not part of the record of the proceeding under review, and evidence about, for example, **327 a particular judge's sentencing practices, should not be considered in the prejudice determination." 466 U.S. at 695 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 .

2019As the Supreme Court has held under Oregon’s more general statute of frauds, ORS 41.580, “[t]he specific performance of a [parol] contract for the conveyance of real estate will not be enforced under any circumstances unless the terms of the contract are shown by full, complete, and satisfactory proof to have been so precise that neither party could reasonably misunderstand them.” Eugene Pioneer Cemetery Ass’n v. Spencer Butte Lodge No. 9, 228 Or 13, 43 , 363 P2d 1083 (1961) (noting that even the pleadings were ambiguous as to the precise terms of the agreement); see also Mukai Living Trust, 1

2019As the Supreme Court has held under Oregon’s more general statute of frauds, ORS 41.580, “[t]he specific performance of a [parol] contract for the conveyance of real estate will not be enforced under any circumstances unless the terms of the contract are shown by full, complete, and satisfactory proof to have been so precise that neither party could reasonably misunderstand them.” Eugene Pioneer Cemetery Ass’n v. Spencer Butte Lodge No. 9, 228 Or 13, 43 , 363 P2d 1083 (1961) (noting that even the pleadings were ambiguous as to the precise terms of the agreement); see also Mukai Living Trust, 1

2019Cite as 299 Or App 460 (2019) 471 Under the doctrine of partial performance, a court may enforce an oral agreement concerning the sale or trans- fer of an interest in land if the party asserting the doctrine shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) “the existence of an agreement that is clear and unambiguous in its terms”; (2) “that the partial performance unequivocally and exclu- sively refers to the agreement”; and (3) “that there are equi- table grounds for enforcing the agreement.” Id. at 758 (citing Mukai Living Trust Dated Dec. 8, 1997 v. Lopez, 199 Or App 341, 345 , 111 P3d 1150 (

2019Cite as 299 Or App 460 (2019) 471 Under the doctrine of partial performance, a court may enforce an oral agreement concerning the sale or trans- fer of an interest in land if the party asserting the doctrine shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) “the existence of an agreement that is clear and unambiguous in its terms”; (2) “that the partial performance unequivocally and exclu- sively refers to the agreement”; and (3) “that there are equi- table grounds for enforcing the agreement.” Id. at 758 (citing Mukai Living Trust Dated Dec. 8, 1997 v. Lopez, 199 Or App 341, 345 , 111 P3d 1150 (

2017Given the potential significance of the email threats to proving petitioner’s theory of defense, we are unable to conclude from the existing findings whether petitioner proved that his defense counsel’s omission “‘could have tended to affect’ the outcome of the case.” See id. at 323 (quoting Lichau, 333 Or at 365 (emphasis omitted)).

2013Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that plaintiff had engaged in misconduct with respect to the bank, summary judgment based on the unclean hands doctrine would be inappropriate because there were genuine issues of material fact relevant to whether applying the doctrine would work an injustice, Taylor, 204 Or at 26 , and whether defendant suffered an actual injury due to the alleged misconduct, Martin, 124 Or App at 352 .

2013The trial court had admitted the certificate as a business record and allowed its introduction through the testimony of “an analyst who did not sign the certification or personally perform or observe the performance of the test reported in the certification.” Id. at 2713 .

2013Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that plaintiff had engaged in misconduct with respect to the bank, summary judgment based on the unclean hands doctrine would be inappropriate because there were genuine issues of material fact relevant to whether applying the doctrine would work an injustice, Taylor, 204 Or at 26 , and whether defendant suffered an actual injury due to the alleged misconduct, Martin, 124 Or App at 352 .

2003Lang, 173 Or App at 398 .

2003We take issue with the dissent's view that our conclusion sets the performance bar higher than the constitution demands by making post-conviction relief available whenever counsel fails to assert the single correct interpretation of an ambiguous statute. 187 Or.App. at 315, 67 P.3d 408 (Edmonds, P.J., dissenting).

2000Stevens, 154 Or App at 59 n 5.” OTECC, 168 Or App at 475 n 7.

1995That is true, but it also is a complete, non-incriminating explanation for the suspect's performance of the test. [7] At the same time, it would be disingenuous for me not to note in passing, and with the greatest respect and deference to the Court that is responsible for safeguarding federal constitutional rights, that I believe that Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 , 110 S.Ct. 2638 , 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990) needs a thoughtful second look.

1995That is true, but it also is a complete, non-incriminating explanation for the suspect's performance of the test. [7] At the same time, it would be disingenuous for me not to note in passing, and with the greatest respect and deference to the Court that is responsible for safeguarding federal constitutional rights, that I believe that Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 , 110 S.Ct. 2638 , 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990) needs a thoughtful second look.

1989If that is so, it is difficult to imagine what procedure the majority would find “affect[ed] the actual performance of the test.” As the majority itself notes, we held in State v. Roe, 95 Or App 477, 480 , 770 P2d 69 , rev den 308 Or 142 (1989), that the test for evaluating whether a testing error warrants exclusion is whether the error is related to “performance of the test or its accuracy as evi dence..” (Emphasis supplied.) Surely whether a test card is clean and therefore clearly legible affects “its accuracy as evidence.” The legislature authorized the Oregon State Police to approve metho

1989If that is so, it is difficult to imagine what procedure the majority would find "affect[ed] the actual performance of the test." As the majority itself notes, we held in State v. Roe, 95 Or.

1929The execution and *118 delivery of the deed of reconveyance we believe was sufficient to take the case out of the statute of frauds: Gray v. Beard, supra, and Stephens v. Tipton, 128 Or. 115 ( 268 P. 1014 ).

1929The execution and *118 delivery of the deed of reconveyance we believe was sufficient to take the case out of the statute of frauds: Gray v. Beard, supra, and Stephens v. Tipton, 128 Or. 115 ( 268 P. 1014 ).