articulated test in Oregon

2011The criterion is met when the entire parcel is actually used primarily for qualifying activities or when those portions not actually used are reasonably necessary to accommodate the actual qualifying uses that occur on the remainder of the parcel." Id. at 484 .

2009Relying on Webel v. Yale University, 125 Conn 515, 7 A2d 215 (1939), the court articulated the test that “the nature of the defect might be such that the landlord would reasonably expect that the tenant would take steps to remedy the defect or otherwise to safeguard persons entering them at his invitation.” Jensen, 250 Or at 364 (footnote omitted).

2009Relying on Webel v. Yale University, 125 Conn 515, 7 A2d 215 (1939), the court articulated the test that “the nature of the defect might be such that the landlord would reasonably expect that the tenant would take steps to remedy the defect or otherwise to safeguard persons entering them at his invitation.” Jensen, 250 Or at 364 (footnote omitted).

2006The court articulated a rule to ensure that expert opinion testimony was relevant under OEC 401, 4 was helpful to the fact-finder under OEC 702, and was excluded when necessary in keeping with the dictates of OEC 403. 5 Id. at 409 .

2006In Brown , the court reiterated its view that the test that it articulated for the admission of scientific evidence applied only when the court was considering expert testimony, pointing to its decision in State v. Kersting, 292 Or 350, 354 , 638 P2d 1145 (1982).

2006In Brown , the court reiterated its view that the test that it articulated for the admission of scientific evidence applied only when the court was considering expert testimony, pointing to its decision in State v. Kersting, 292 Or 350, 354 , 638 P2d 1145 (1982).

2003In State ex rel SOSCF v. Williams, 168 Or App 538, 550-51 , 7 P3d 655 (2000), rev dismissed, 333 Or 596 (2002), this court articulated the principle that, when a juvenile court orders the production of adoption home studies, the court, to act within its discretion, must balance the right to privacy of the subjects of the home studies with the need of the party requesting the information.

2003In State ex rel SOSCF v. Williams, 168 Or App 538, 550-51 , 7 P3d 655 (2000), rev dismissed, 333 Or 596 (2002), this court articulated the principle that, when a juvenile court orders the production of adoption home studies, the court, to act within its discretion, must balance the right to privacy of the subjects of the home studies with the need of the party requesting the information.

2003That principle was reaffirmed by this court in State el rel SOSCF v. Mitchell, 182 Or App 402, 414 , 49 P3d 838 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002).

2003That principle was reaffirmed by this court in State el rel SOSCF v. Mitchell, 182 Or App 402, 414 , 49 P3d 838 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002).

1993The dissenting opinions contend that defendant did not preserve the purported error for appellate review. [1] In State v. Hitz, 307 Or. 183, 188 , 766 P.2d 373 (1988), the court articulated a framework for determining whether an error has been adequately preserved: "We have previously drawn attention to the distinctions between raising an issue at trial, identifying a source for a claimed position, and making a particular argument.

1993The dissenting opinions contend that defendant did not preserve the purported error for appellate review. [1] In State v. Hitz, 307 Or. 183, 188 , 766 P.2d 373 (1988), the court articulated a framework for determining whether an error has been adequately preserved: "We have previously drawn attention to the distinctions between raising an issue at trial, identifying a source for a claimed position, and making a particular argument.

1991Although used in a different context, those cases hold that the ‘proper test for voluntariness is to examine the totality of the facts and circumstances to see whether the consent was given by * * * free will or was the result of coercion, express or implied.’ State v. Wolfe, 295 Or 567, 572 , 669 P2d 320 (1983) (citing State v. Kennedy, 290 Or 493, 502 , 624 P2d 99 (1981)).” State v. Dimeo, supra, 304 Or at 474.

1991Although used in a different context, those cases hold that the ‘proper test for voluntariness is to examine the totality of the facts and circumstances to see whether the consent was given by * * * free will or was the result of coercion, express or implied.’ State v. Wolfe, 295 Or 567, 572 , 669 P2d 320 (1983) (citing State v. Kennedy, 290 Or 493, 502 , 624 P2d 99 (1981)).” State v. Dimeo, supra, 304 Or at 474.

1991Although used in a different context, those cases hold that the ‘proper test for voluntariness is to examine the totality of the facts and circumstances to see whether the consent was given by * * * free will or was the result of coercion, express or implied.’ State v. Wolfe, 295 Or 567, 572 , 669 P2d 320 (1983) (citing State v. Kennedy, 290 Or 493, 502 , 624 P2d 99 (1981)).” State v. Dimeo, supra, 304 Or at 474.

1991Although used in a different context, those cases hold that the ‘proper test for voluntariness is to examine the totality of the facts and circumstances to see whether the consent was given by * * * free will or was the result of coercion, express or implied.’ State v. Wolfe, 295 Or 567, 572 , 669 P2d 320 (1983) (citing State v. Kennedy, 290 Or 493, 502 , 624 P2d 99 (1981)).” State v. Dimeo, supra, 304 Or at 474.