Supreme Court discussed requirement in Oregon

2014The Supreme Court discussed that principle in Swett v. Bradbury, 335 Or 378, 389 , 67 P3d 391 (2003), in which it awarded attorney fees to plaintiffs who had successfully challenged the constitutionality of a ballot measure, even though the plaintiffs had obtained only declaratory, not injunctive relief: “[T]his case on the merits involved a declaratory judgment proceeding and, in such proceedings, a court has the power to grant equitable remedies where appropriate.

2014The Supreme Court discussed that principle in Swett v. Bradbury, 335 Or 378, 389 , 67 P3d 391 (2003), in which it awarded attorney fees to plaintiffs who had successfully challenged the constitutionality of a ballot measure, even though the plaintiffs had obtained only declaratory, not injunctive relief: “[T]his case on the merits involved a declaratory judgment proceeding and, in such proceedings, a court has the power to grant equitable remedies where appropriate.

2008In its opinion in Bloomfield I, the Supreme Court discussed the doctrine of claim preclusion, which generally prohibits a party from relitigating the same claim or splitting a claim into multiple actions against the same opposing party. 339 Or at 510 .

2008The court stated that the doctrine “forecloses a party that has litigated a claim against another from further litigation on that same claim on any ground or theory of relief that the party could have litigated in the first instance.” Id. at 511 .

2001In Holmes, the Supreme Court discussed the test for determining whether a seizure has occurred in the context of encounters between citizens and the police. 311 Or at 409-10 .

1997ORS 88.100 codifies the common-law doctrine of equitable redemption, and, in Land Associates v. Becker, 294 Or 308, 312-13 , 656 P2d 927 (1982), the Supreme Court discussed the doctrine in a brief review of the history of mortgages.

1997ORS 88.100 codifies the common-law doctrine of equitable redemption, and, in Land Associates v. Becker, 294 Or 308, 312-13 , 656 P2d 927 (1982), the Supreme Court discussed the doctrine in a brief review of the history of mortgages.

1990In Arena v. Gingrich, 305 Or 1, 4 , 748 P2d 547 (1988), the Supreme Court discussed the standard for proving liability for an injury when the risks of a medical procedure are not fully explained: “When liability for physical injuries is premised on a failure to obtain a patient’s consent in the manner prescribed by ORS 677.097, a patient’s claim may be that she did not consent at all, or that she consented only because she was not fully informed.

1990In Arena v. Gingrich, 305 Or 1, 4 , 748 P2d 547 (1988), the Supreme Court discussed the standard for proving liability for an injury when the risks of a medical procedure are not fully explained: “When liability for physical injuries is premised on a failure to obtain a patient’s consent in the manner prescribed by ORS 677.097, a patient’s claim may be that she did not consent at all, or that she consented only because she was not fully informed.

1985Affirmed. 1 Evidence of defendant’s conviction for shoplifting was not admissible under OEC 609(l)(a), because the conviction was not punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year. 2 In State v. McClure, 298 Or 336 , 692 P2d 579 (1984), the Supreme Court discussed the test for admissibility of convictions under OEC 609(1) (a) but did not discuss the admissibility of convictions for false statements under OEC 609(1)(b). 3 Commentary to OEC 609 provides, in part: “Offenses Against Property “164.015(2) - Theft — by failure to restore known lost property” “164.015(4) - Theft — by deception” “16

1985Affirmed. 1 Evidence of defendant’s conviction for shoplifting was not admissible under OEC 609(l)(a), because the conviction was not punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year. 2 In State v. McClure, 298 Or 336 , 692 P2d 579 (1984), the Supreme Court discussed the test for admissibility of convictions under OEC 609(1) (a) but did not discuss the admissibility of convictions for false statements under OEC 609(1)(b). 3 Commentary to OEC 609 provides, in part: “Offenses Against Property “164.015(2) - Theft — by failure to restore known lost property” “164.015(4) - Theft — by deception” “16

1981State ex rel Pratt v. Main, 253 Or 408, 412 , 454 P2d 643 (1969).

1981State ex rel Pratt v. Main, 253 Or 408, 412 , 454 P2d 643 (1969).

1981Ter Har v. Backus, 259 Or 478, 484 , 487 P2d 660 (1971); Dixie Meadows Co. v. Kight, 150 Or 395, 399 , 45 P2d 909 (1935); Keane et al v. City of Portland et al, 115 Or 1, 9 , 235 P 677 (1925); Bitting v. Douglas County, 24 Or 406, 410 , 33 P 981 (1893); see Ashford v. Ashford, 201 Or 206, 219 , 249 P2d 968 , 268 P2d 382 (1954). *292 The statutes concerning notice and substituted service at the time of this proceeding were ORS 109.740, 109.750 and 15.120. 2 *293 In Ter Har v. Backus, supra, 259 Or at 481-482 , the Supreme Court discussed the requirement of the showing of "due diligence” to just

1981Ter Har v. Backus, 259 Or 478, 484 , 487 P2d 660 (1971); Dixie Meadows Co. v. Kight, 150 Or 395, 399 , 45 P2d 909 (1935); Keane et al v. City of Portland et al, 115 Or 1, 9 , 235 P 677 (1925); Bitting v. Douglas County, 24 Or 406, 410 , 33 P 981 (1893); see Ashford v. Ashford, 201 Or 206, 219 , 249 P2d 968 , 268 P2d 382 (1954). *292 The statutes concerning notice and substituted service at the time of this proceeding were ORS 109.740, 109.750 and 15.120. 2 *293 In Ter Har v. Backus, supra, 259 Or at 481-482 , the Supreme Court discussed the requirement of the showing of "due diligence” to just

1981Ter Har v. Backus, 259 Or 478, 484 , 487 P2d 660 (1971); Dixie Meadows Co. v. Kight, 150 Or 395, 399 , 45 P2d 909 (1935); Keane et al v. City of Portland et al, 115 Or 1, 9 , 235 P 677 (1925); Bitting v. Douglas County, 24 Or 406, 410 , 33 P 981 (1893); see Ashford v. Ashford, 201 Or 206, 219 , 249 P2d 968 , 268 P2d 382 (1954). *292 The statutes concerning notice and substituted service at the time of this proceeding were ORS 109.740, 109.750 and 15.120. 2 *293 In Ter Har v. Backus, supra, 259 Or at 481-482 , the Supreme Court discussed the requirement of the showing of "due diligence” to just

1981Ter Har v. Backus, 259 Or 478, 484 , 487 P2d 660 (1971); Dixie Meadows Co. v. Kight, 150 Or 395, 399 , 45 P2d 909 (1935); Keane et al v. City of Portland et al, 115 Or 1, 9 , 235 P 677 (1925); Bitting v. Douglas County, 24 Or 406, 410 , 33 P 981 (1893); see Ashford v. Ashford, 201 Or 206, 219 , 249 P2d 968 , 268 P2d 382 (1954). *292 The statutes concerning notice and substituted service at the time of this proceeding were ORS 109.740, 109.750 and 15.120. 2 *293 In Ter Har v. Backus, supra, 259 Or at 481-482 , the Supreme Court discussed the requirement of the showing of "due diligence” to just

1981Ter Har v. Backus, 259 Or 478, 484 , 487 P2d 660 (1971); Dixie Meadows Co. v. Kight, 150 Or 395, 399 , 45 P2d 909 (1935); Keane et al v. City of Portland et al, 115 Or 1, 9 , 235 P 677 (1925); Bitting v. Douglas County, 24 Or 406, 410 , 33 P 981 (1893); see Ashford v. Ashford, 201 Or 206, 219 , 249 P2d 968 , 268 P2d 382 (1954). *292 The statutes concerning notice and substituted service at the time of this proceeding were ORS 109.740, 109.750 and 15.120. 2 *293 In Ter Har v. Backus, supra, 259 Or at 481-482 , the Supreme Court discussed the requirement of the showing of "due diligence” to just

1981Ter Har v. Backus, 259 Or 478, 484 , 487 P2d 660 (1971); Dixie Meadows Co. v. Kight, 150 Or 395, 399 , 45 P2d 909 (1935); Keane et al v. City of Portland et al, 115 Or 1, 9 , 235 P 677 (1925); Bitting v. Douglas County, 24 Or 406, 410 , 33 P 981 (1893); see Ashford v. Ashford, 201 Or 206, 219 , 249 P2d 968 , 268 P2d 382 (1954). *292 The statutes concerning notice and substituted service at the time of this proceeding were ORS 109.740, 109.750 and 15.120. 2 *293 In Ter Har v. Backus, supra, 259 Or at 481-482 , the Supreme Court discussed the requirement of the showing of "due diligence” to just

1976In re Estate of Heck, supra. In Smith et al v. Columbia County et al, 216 Or 662 , 341 P2d 540 (1959), the Supreme Court discussed the test for determining the reasonableness of a classification for tax purposes.

1976In re Estate of Heck, supra. In Smith et al v. Columbia County et al, 216 Or 662 , 341 P2d 540 (1959), the Supreme Court discussed the test for determining the reasonableness of a classification for tax purposes.