Oregon Supreme Court

2017

January 0 summaries

February 4 summaries

Oil Re-Refining Co. v. Environmental Quality Comm. 

A strict liability standard applies to the Department of Environmental Quality’s enforcement actions for simple violations of substantive standards.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Carlton

Under ORS 137.719(3)(b)(B), “comparable offenses” from other states requires “close element matching” between respective out of state and Oregon statutes for any out of state convictions to be relied on in sentencing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Morgan

Under ORS 164.405(1)(b), a person is guilty of second-degree robbery if (1) they committed third-degree robbery and (2) was "aided by another person actually present". The state is required to prove that the person who aided defendant acted with the intent to facilitate the robbery.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co.

Under ORS 742.524(1)(a) the phrase “expenses of medical services” includes (1) the cost of professional services provided by licensed or certified healthcare providers and (2) medications and medical supplies and equipment that have prescribed for the injured motorist that they treat.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

March 8 summaries

Barrett v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.

Foreign corporations are subject to general jurisdiction of Oregon courts when "substantial and continues business presence" in Oregon is so "'continuous and systematic" as to render" the corporation "essentially at home" in Oregon. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Figueroa v. BNSF Railway Co.

Foreign corporations do not automatically consent to the general jurisdiction of Oregon by complying with ORS 60.731(1) and appointing an agent of the company upon which process is served.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Maciel-Figueroa

An officer has reasonable suspicion for a lawful investigatory stop when “an officer can point to specific and articulable facts that give rise to a reasonable inference that the defendant committed or was about to commit a specific crime or type of crime.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Nichols

Under Article I, section 12, if a suspect unequivocally invokes his or her right against compelled self-incrimination during a custodial interrogation, then police must honor that request and stop the interrogation. The statement is sufficient if a reasonable officer would understand the statement to be an invocation of the rights against self-incrimination.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Barrier v. Beaman

Under OEC 504-1(2), “[a] patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications in a civil action . . . made for the purposes of diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s physical condition.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

In re Roller

When a lawyer fails to frame any challenge to the trial panel’s decision, he or she is not entitled to any different consideration by the court than if he or she had not sought review at all. In re Oh, 350 Or 204, 252 P3d 325 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Professional Responsibility

State v. Andersen

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement applies only if a car is mobile when an officer first encounters it in the investigation of a crime. However, the officer need not visually see the vehicle in motion. An officer can perform a warrantless search or seizure of a vehicle if the officer is able to reasonably infer that the vehicle has “momentarily come to a rest.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Moore

A trial court may declare a mistrial, in spite of double jeopardy, if there is a "manifest necessity" to do so.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

April 6 summaries

State v. McNally

Under ORS 162.247(3)(b), the phrase "passive resistance" refers to noncooperation with a peace officer’s lawful order that does not involve violence or active conduct, whatever the motivation for the noncooperation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Daniel N. Gordon, PC v. Rosenblum

(1) Under ORS 646.607(1), the term “unconscionable tactics” does not require a customer relationship, and was intended “to apply in connection with an obligor/obligee relationship.” (2) To be liable under ORS 646.608(1)(b), “the person must ‘cause’ the likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding experienced by the other person,” and “the causal relationship must ‘arise out of transactions which are at least indirectly connected with the ordinary and usual course of [the person’s] business, vocation or occupation.’”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Consumer Credit

State v. Hightower

Under Article I, Section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, when a defendant attempts to exercise the right to self-representation in the midst of a trial, the exercise of that right is subject to the trial court's discretion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Mazziotti

Under OEC 403, “in a criminal case, when a defendant objects to other acts evidence that is relevant only to prove the defendant’s character under OEC 404(4), the trial court must conduct balancing under OEC 403, according to the terms of that rule, to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.” State v. Baughman, 361 Or 386, 402 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Zavala

Under OEC 404(3), “[i]f other acts evidence is not proffered to prove a defendant’s character, but instead is offered for a nonpropensity purpose, then analysis under OEC 404(4) is unnecessary; the evidence ‘may be admissible’ under the second sentence of OEC 404(3).” State v. Baughman, 361 Or 386, 403-04 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Baughman

Under OEC 403, the trial court must conduct a balancing test in a criminal action where the state presents evidence of uncharged acts in order to prove a defendant’s tendency to commit crimes under OEC 404(4), or a nonpropensity purpose under 404(3), and defendant objects to the evidence being admitted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

May 2 summaries

Boardman Acquisition LLC v. Dept. of Rev. 

Under ORS 308A.068(3), “the date the disqualification is taken into account on the assessment and tax roll” means the date the disqualification becomes effective on the roll.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Smith v. Providence Health & Services – Oregon

In Oregon, “[A] loss of a substantial chance of a better medical outcome can be a cognizable injury in a common-law claim of medical malpractice.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

June 2 summaries

State v. Blair, 361 Or 527 (2017)

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, the circumstances demonstrating a defendant’s actual understanding and intent are relevant factors in the analysis of whether a defendant “voluntarily relinquished” his or her privacy interest in a place or thing searched by the government. See, e.g., State v. Stevens, 311 Or 119, 132-38, 806 P2d 92 (1991).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Winn

“In determining whether a particular search falls within the scope of a defendant’s consent, the trial court will determine, based on the totality of circumstances, what the defendant actually intended.” State v. Blair, 361 Or. 527, 537 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

July 0 summaries

August 6 summaries

Johnson v. Premo

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, an attorney’s decision to pursue only one argument despite the available information presenting stronger arguments is not a reasonable tactical decision.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Garcia

“Under ORS 162.247(3)(a), the state is not precluded from alleging interfering and resisting arrest as alternative charges, even when based on the same acts, and, when the defendant disputes the charges, that the trial court should submit both charges to the jury with an appropriate instruction or verdict form.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office v. Edwards

Under ORS 408.230(2)(c), public employers are required “to formulate some sort of standard or regular procedure that the public employer develops in advance and then applies in a hiring process.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Eastep

Under ORS 164.135, to qualify as a “vehicle” under the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle statute, the vehicle need not be in running order. However, it must be “capable of operation,” that is, not be completely disassembled or “wrecked.” State v. Macomber, 269 Or 58 (1974).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Ritz

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, an officers’ reasonable belief that the delay caused by obtaining a warrant will lead to loss of evidence creates an exigent circumstance allowing a warrantless search. State v. Ritz, 361 Or. 781, 795 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Sierra

Under the Pearce/Partain vindictiveness analysis, when two different judges assess the facts of a particular case, those two different individuals reasonably may reach different conclusions about the appropriate punishment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

September 5 summaries

Delta Logistics, Inc. v. Employment Dept. Tax Section

Work that does not constitute “employment” for the purposes of unemployment insurance taxes under ORS 657.047(1)(b) is: “transportation performed by motor vehicle for a for-hire carrier by any person that leases their equipment to a for-hire carrier and that personally operates, furnishes, and maintains the equipment and provides service thereto."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

State v. K. A. M.

Requesting identification does not sufficient a stop on its own. However, an encounter can rise to the level of a stop if under the totality of the circumstances, the types of questions, manner of which they are asked, or other police action would make a reasonable person believe the police are “exercising their authority to coercively detain” them. State v. Backstrand, 354 Or 382, 412, 313 P3d 1084 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Richards

A trial court is prohibited from revoking probation or imposing additional sanctions “after the probationer has completed a structured, intermediate sanction imposed by the Department of Corrections or a county community corrections agency....” ORS 137.595(3).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Unger v. Rosenblum

Under ORS 250.035(2)(a), a ballot title caption must reasonably identify the subject matter of a state measure in fifteen words or fewer.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

Wittemyer v. City of Portland

“No poll or head tax shall be levied or collected in Oregon.” Article IX, section 1a. Based on ordinary meaning, a poll or head tax within the meaning of Article IX, section 1a of the Oregon Constitution, "is one that applies uniformly on a per capita basis, but does not take income, property, or resources into account in any way.” Wittemyer v. Portland, 361 Or. 854, 883 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

October 7 summaries

Haynes v. Board of Parole

"When a state provides a statutory process for judicial review of a parole decision, inmates have no due process right to be assisted by adequate counsel before the petition for review is denied.” See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 US 551, 555, 107 S Ct 1990, 95 L Ed 2d 539 (1987).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

TriMet v. Aizawa

“[T]he court shall give judgment to the [property owner] for the amount offered as just compensation for the property * * * and, in addition, for costs and disbursements, attorney fees and expenses that are determined by the court to have been incurred before service of the offer on the [owner].” ORS 35.300(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Dillard v. Premo

Under ORS 138.525(3), a judgment that dismisses a meritless post-conviction petition is not appealable, however, the dismissal must “without prejudice” if the petitioner lacked counsel or the petition was dismissed without a hearing. ORS 138.525(4).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

OHSU v. Oregonian Publishing Co., LLC

HIPAA protects the privacy and confidentiality of “individually identifiable health information” created or received by a health care provider that relates to an individual’s health condition and identifies the individual. 45 CFR § 160.103. The HIPAA Privacy Rule, however, permits disclosure of protected health information where such disclosure is required by state law. 45 CFR § 164.512(a)(1). While Oregon Public Records Law gives every person the right to inspect public records, it exempts individually identifiable health information from disclosure. ORS 192.420(1); ORS 192.502(9)(a); 192.553; ORS 192.556 (11)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

State v. Harris

The confrontation clause of Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution requires that the State exhaust all “reasonably available means for producing a witness." A witness's failure to appear after delivery of a valid subpoena is insufficient, without more, to declare unavailability of a witness. However, a defendant cannot appeal the result of an error he caused. State v. Koennicke, 274 Or 169, 173-74 (1976); Valdin v. Holteen and Nordstrom, 199 Or 134, 152 (1953).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Larisa’s Home Care, LLC v. Nichols-Shields

A person’s estate is unjustly enriched if the person receives benefits through misrepresentations about his or her finances. In re Anderson’s Estate, 157 Or 365, 71 P2d 1013 (1937).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Parrish v. Rosenblum

A caption must be reasonably identifiable in subject matter. "Yes" and "no" statements must be laid out as simple and understandable. The summary must be a “concise and impartial statement” that summarizes the legislation and its major effects. ORS 250.035(2)(a) - (2)(d).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

November 2 summaries

Ellison v. Dept. of Rev.

If the Tax Court finds “in favor of the taxpayer” in proceedings for ad volorem property taxation, exemptions, special assessments or omitted property, the Tax Court is permitted to award reasonable attorneys fees in addition to costs and disbursements. ORS 305.490(4)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Swanson v. Rosenblum

Under Whitsett v. Kroger, the “subject matter” of a ballot measure for purposes of ORS 250.035(2)(a) is the “actual major effect” of the measure or, “if the measure has more than one major effect, all such effects.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles