Oregon Supreme Court

Opinions Filed in November 2015

Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 45)

Under ORS 250.085(5), a petitioner may seek review of a certified ballot title to determine whether it substantially complies with ORS 250.035(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 46)

Under ORS 250.085(5), a petitioner may seek review of a certified ballot title to determine whether it substantially complies with ORS 250.035(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

Kendoll v. Rosenblum

Under ORS 250.085(5), a petitioner may seek review of a certified ballot title to determine whether it substantially complies with ORS 250.035(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

State v. Guzek

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, a defendant may not be entitled to a full evidentiary hearing with live testimony to determine use of appropriate restraints during a penalty-phase trial, where the record reflects no disputed facts and the trial court properly considered, on the record, the risk of danger, disruption or escape and the relative prejudice of types of restraints.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Brownstone Homes Condo. Assn. v. Brownstone Forest Hts.

Stubblefield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine was wrongly decided when it held a covenant not to execute in exchange for an assignment of rights, by itself, constitutes a release that extinguishes further liability of the insured, and therefore also extinguishes the rights of the insurer.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Chapman v. Mayfield

For negligence claims, courts must consider each case on its own facts, especially in cases involving third party criminal conduct. However, alleging over-service on the part of a bar is not alone sufficient to establish foreseeability of the type of harm that actually resulted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Hillenga v. Dept. of Revenue

Under ORS 305.265, a “deficiency” is a notice and assessment of any owed and unpaid taxes. The three-year statute of limitations under ORS 314.410(1) applies only to notices of deficiency for a particular tax year and does not bar a challenge when a claimed net operating loss is carried over to a subsequent tax year filing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

State v. Cuevas

OAR 213-012-0020(2) and OAR 213-004-0006(2) do not require a jury determination of whether multiple convictions sentenced in a single judicial proceeding arose out of separate criminal episodes, because each rule serves as an exception to reduce a total criminal sentence, thereby not triggering the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Back to Top