holding that a prior "administrative decision actually decided ultimate factual issues that are essential to plaintiffs' present claims and that issue preclusion therefore bars the relitigation of those issues"
Summary of this case from Portland Public School District No. 1J v. Portland Custodian Civil Service BoardJuly 17, 2001
July 17, 2001
holding that a prior "administrative decision actually decided ultimate factual issues that are essential to plaintiffs' present claims and that issue preclusion therefore bars the relitigation of those issues"
Summary of this case from Portland Public School District No. 1J v. Portland Custodian Civil Service Boardconcluding that the trial court did not err in failing to direct a mistrial sua sponte even though the state’s assertion during closing argument that it could only recommend prosecution on "true" cases "went well beyond the bounds of proper argument"
Summary of this case from State v. Boauoddescribing `clear and convincing' evidence as evidence establishing that `the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable'
Summary of this case from In re C. A. Jdescribing "clear and convincing" evidence as evidence establishing that "the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable"
Summary of this case from State v. M. L. Fdescribing "clear and convincing evidence" as evidence establishing that "the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable"
Summary of this case from State v. Hambletondescribing "clear and convincing evidence" as evidence establishing that "the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable"
Summary of this case from State v. Hayesdescribing "clear and convincing evidence" as establishing that the "truth of the facts asserted is highly probable."
Summary of this case from In the Matter of Lindedescribing "clear and convincing evidence" as evidence establishing that the "truth of the facts asserted is highly probable."
Summary of this case from State v. Hittdistinguishing between challenges under ORS 183.482 to alleged procedural errors that are evident on the record and challenges under ORS 183.482 to alleged procedural errors that are not
Summary of this case from Villanueva v. Board, Psychologist ExamFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jul 17, 2001
Given our disposition, we need not address that assignment. But cf. State v. Bartel-Dawson, 176 Or. App. 519,…
Villanueva v. Board, Psychologist ExamAs the Supreme Court has explained, ORS 183.482(7) "is designed to supplement the agency record regarding…