claim for relief defense in Oregon

2009See, e.g., OEC 305 (“A party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of which the law declares essential to the claim for relief or defense the party is asserting.”); ORS 183.450(2) (“The burden of presenting evidence to support a fact or position in a contested case rests on the proponent of the fact or position.”); Benaman v. Andrews, 213 Or App 467, 476 , 162 P3d 280 (2007) (party seeking relief bears burden of proving facts on which that relief is conditioned).

2009See, e.g., OEC 305 (“A party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of which the law declares essential to the claim for relief or defense the party is asserting.”); ORS 183.450(2) (“The burden of presenting evidence to support a fact or position in a contested case rests on the proponent of the fact or position.”); Benaman v. Andrews, 213 Or App 467, 476 , 162 P3d 280 (2007) (party seeking relief bears burden of proving facts on which that relief is conditioned).

2021See Ireland v. Flanagan, 51 Or App 837, 842 , 627 P2d 496 (1981) (citing Carpenter v. Carpenter, 153 Or 584, 601-02 , 58 P2d 507 (1936)); see also OEC 305 (“A party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the exis- tence or nonexistence of which the law declares essential to the claim for relief or defense the party is asserting.”).11 We have described the proof required: “[A]n inter vivos gift transfers the interest in the subject property unconditionally, at the time of delivery of the gift. * * * It requires delivery, a donative intent, a present vesting of unlimited rights in the gift

2021See Ireland v. Flanagan, 51 Or App 837, 842 , 627 P2d 496 (1981) (citing Carpenter v. Carpenter, 153 Or 584, 601-02 , 58 P2d 507 (1936)); see also OEC 305 (“A party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the exis- tence or nonexistence of which the law declares essential to the claim for relief or defense the party is asserting.”).11 We have described the proof required: “[A]n inter vivos gift transfers the interest in the subject property unconditionally, at the time of delivery of the gift. * * * It requires delivery, a donative intent, a present vesting of unlimited rights in the gift

2021See Ireland v. Flanagan, 51 Or App 837, 842 , 627 P2d 496 (1981) (citing Carpenter v. Carpenter, 153 Or 584, 601-02 , 58 P2d 507 (1936)); see also OEC 305 (“A party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the exis- tence or nonexistence of which the law declares essential to the claim for relief or defense the party is asserting.”).11 We have described the proof required: “[A]n inter vivos gift transfers the interest in the subject property unconditionally, at the time of delivery of the gift. * * * It requires delivery, a donative intent, a present vesting of unlimited rights in the gift

2021See Ireland v. Flanagan, 51 Or App 837, 842 , 627 P2d 496 (1981) (citing Carpenter v. Carpenter, 153 Or 584, 601-02 , 58 P2d 507 (1936)); see also OEC 305 (“A party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the exis- tence or nonexistence of which the law declares essential to the claim for relief or defense the party is asserting.”).11 We have described the proof required: “[A]n inter vivos gift transfers the interest in the subject property unconditionally, at the time of delivery of the gift. * * * It requires delivery, a donative intent, a present vesting of unlimited rights in the gift

2018App. 646 , 653, 883 P.2d 261 , rev. den. , 320 Or. 492 , 887 P.2d 793 (1994) (new use of prescriptive easement by dominant estate upheld in the absence of evidence that proposed new use imposes a new burden on the servient estate); see OEC 305 (placing on a party the burden of persuasion "as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of which the law declares essential to the claim for relief or defense the party is asserting"); OEC 307(1) ("The burden of producing evidence as to a particular issue is on the party against whom a finding on the issue would be required in the absence of further

2014If that party does not establish the truth of that essential fact in the mind of the factfinder by'the requisite standard of proof, then the factfinder cannot find that the fact exists. ***** The burden of persuasion is, in essence, a method of breaking ties regarding disputed factual questions.” State v. James, 339 Or 476, 487 , 123 P3d 251 (2005) (emphasis added).

2014If that party does not establish the truth of that essential fact in the mind of the factfinder by'the requisite standard of proof, then the factfinder cannot find that the fact exists. ***** The burden of persuasion is, in essence, a method of breaking ties regarding disputed factual questions.” State v. James, 339 Or 476, 487 , 123 P3d 251 (2005) (emphasis added).

2000See, e.g., ORS 183.482(8)(c) (factfindingby administrative agency is reviewed for substantial evidence; substantial evidence supports a finding when the record, viewed as a whole, permits a reasonable person to make the finding); Illingworth v. Bushong, 297 Or 675, 694 , 688 P2d 379 (1984) (to set aside civil verdict, reviewing court must be able to conclude affirmatively that no evidence supports jury’s determination of the facts); State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den 514 US 1005 (1995) (evidence to support criminal conviction is viewed in the light most favorable

2000See, e.g., ORS 183.482(8)(c) (factfindingby administrative agency is reviewed for substantial evidence; substantial evidence supports a finding when the record, viewed as a whole, permits a reasonable person to make the finding); Illingworth v. Bushong, 297 Or 675, 694 , 688 P2d 379 (1984) (to set aside civil verdict, reviewing court must be able to conclude affirmatively that no evidence supports jury’s determination of the facts); State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den 514 US 1005 (1995) (evidence to support criminal conviction is viewed in the light most favorable

2000There, it has been replaced with the more precise concepts of “burden of production” and “burden of persuasion.” See, e.g., OEC 305 (“A party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of which the law declares essential to the claim for relief or defense the party is asserting.”); OEC 307(2) (“The burden of producing evidence as to a particular issue is initially on the party with the burden of persuasion as to that issue.”). 3 See, e.g., Hannan v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 4 Or App 178 , 471 P2d 831 (1970) (de novo review is a trial anew in the fullest sense, with

2000There, it has been replaced with the more precise concepts of “burden of production” and “burden of persuasion.” See, e.g., OEC 305 (“A party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of which the law declares essential to the claim for relief or defense the party is asserting.”); OEC 307(2) (“The burden of producing evidence as to a particular issue is initially on the party with the burden of persuasion as to that issue.”). 3 See, e.g., Hannan v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 4 Or App 178 , 471 P2d 831 (1970) (de novo review is a trial anew in the fullest sense, with

2000See, e.g., ORS 183.482(8)(c) (factfindingby administrative agency is reviewed for substantial evidence; substantial evidence supports a finding when the record, viewed as a whole, permits a reasonable person to make the finding); Illingworth v. Bushong, 297 Or 675, 694 , 688 P2d 379 (1984) (to set aside civil verdict, reviewing court must be able to conclude affirmatively that no evidence supports jury’s determination of the facts); State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den 514 US 1005 (1995) (evidence to support criminal conviction is viewed in the light most favorable

2000See, e.g., ORS 183.482(8)(c) (factfindingby administrative agency is reviewed for substantial evidence; substantial evidence supports a finding when the record, viewed as a whole, permits a reasonable person to make the finding); Illingworth v. Bushong, 297 Or 675, 694 , 688 P2d 379 (1984) (to set aside civil verdict, reviewing court must be able to conclude affirmatively that no evidence supports jury’s determination of the facts); State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den 514 US 1005 (1995) (evidence to support criminal conviction is viewed in the light most favorable

2000See, e.g., ORS 183.482(8)(c) (factfindingby administrative agency is reviewed for substantial evidence; substantial evidence supports a finding when the record, viewed as a whole, permits a reasonable person to make the finding); Illingworth v. Bushong, 297 Or 675, 694 , 688 P2d 379 (1984) (to set aside civil verdict, reviewing court must be able to conclude affirmatively that no evidence supports jury’s determination of the facts); State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63 , 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den 514 US 1005 (1995) (evidence to support criminal conviction is viewed in the light most favorable

1984Cook v. Michael, 214 Or 513, 525-528 , 330 P2d 1026 (1958). 15 We do not mean to say that the accused must be shown to have been actually aware of the provisions of the rule; every lawyer is charged with notice of the contents of the disciplinary rules.