Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc.
In order to certify a class action lawsuit under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act for intentional misrepresentation causing economic losses, plaintiffs must prove that common issues, such as common reliance on defendant’s alleged misrepresentation, predominate over individualized issues.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State ex rel Walraven v. Dept. of Corrections
ORS 138.160 does not effect a stay on the Department of Corrections’ obligation to prepare and submit a proposed release plan where the Department of Corrections appeals a preliminary order of conditional release under ORS 420A.203.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
A&T Siding, Inc. v. Capitol Specialty Insurance Corp.
Under the equitable doctrine of reformation, mistakes of law regarding the effect of the terms of the written agreement cannot be corrected by reformation of the contract.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Brownstone Homes Condo. Assn. v. Brownstone Forest Hts.
Because an addendum to a settlement agreement does not retroactively eliminate an original release of claims, the issue of whether a party may initiate an action despite the settlement agreement is a live issue, and therefore a motion to dismiss for mootness should be denied.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Oregon State Hospital v. Butts
Under ORS 161.370, trial courts have the authority to commit a defendant to a hospital for treatment to help the defendant regain fitness to stand trial. ORS 161.370 impliedly grants trial courts authority to issue Sell orders, whether or not a doctor agrees that treatment is necessary.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Hickman
Under Article I, sections 2 and 3, of the Oregon Constitution, the State is not required to prove that a defendant acted with a knowing mental state rather than a lower mental state required by statute where a defendant claims his criminal acts were motivated by free exercise of religion principles. (Overturns Meltebeke v. BOLI).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Hickman
Under Article I, sections 2 and 3, of the Oregon Constitution, the State is not required to prove that a defendant acted with knowledge rather than a lesser culpable mental state required by statute where a defendant claims his criminal acts were motivated by free exercise of religion principles. (Overturns Meltebeke v. BOLI).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law