holding that the question of whether the defendant was seized need not be reached because the evidence the defendant sought to suppress was not the product of exploitation of the alleged unlawful seizure

affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part judgment following second trial in declaratory judgment proceeding

reasoning that the application of the insurance policy's terms to particular historical circumstances is a question of fact

exposing an employee to the certainty of injury is not enough to state a claim under ORS 656.156 ; the employee must show that the employer possessed, at least in part, a motive to injure

observing that, in reviewing the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under ORCP 21 A, appellate court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and gives the plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the facts alleged

noting that, where the petitioner did not challenge the agency's authority to promulgate the governing rules, the procedures followed when making the rules, or the validity of the rules under Oregon law, the court did not address those issues