Oregon Supreme Court

2018

January 1 summary

Law v. Zemp

“[A] trial court has general or specific statutory authority to include, in a charging order, ancillary provisions that it finds necessary to allow a judgment creditor access to a debtor-partner’s distributional interest in a company, as long as those provisions do not unduly interfere with the company’s management.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Business Law

February 0 summaries

March 6 summaries

Barbara Ellison v. Department of Revenue, State of Oregon

When revision of an opinion would not bring into question the opinion's reasoning or result and could foreclose another court, modification is allowed. Chart Development Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 16 OTR 9, 14-15 (2001).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Behrle v. Taylor, Superintendent Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution

When it becomes clear in the course of a judicial proceeding that resolving the merits of a claim “no longer will have a practical effect on or concerning the rights of the parties,” the case is moot. Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402, 406, 848 P2d 1194 (1993)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Tena

Under OEC 404(3), in order to admit evidence of violent behavior for non-propensity purposes, the state must "show some substantial connecting link between the two acts," that is, between the other act and the charged act. State v. Flett, 234 Or 124, 380 P2d 634 (1963).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Markley/Lutz v. Rosenblum

The “subject matter” of a ballot title is “the ‘actual major effect’ of a measure or, if the measure has more than one major effect, all such effects (to the limit of the available words).” Lavey v. Kroger, 350 Or 559, 563, 258 P3d 1194 (2011); ORS 250.035(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

Lutz v. Rosenblum

Under ORS 250.035(2), the caption, result statements, and summary of ballot measures must succinctly and clearly identify the subject matter, purpose, and major effect of the proposed measure.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

State v. Stewart

To prove that a delivery "is for consideration" under ORS 475.900(2)(a), the State is required to offer evidence that a defendant either entered into an agreement to sell or completed a sale of the specified drug. Evidence that a defendant possessed the drug with intent to sell them is insufficient.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

April 1 summary

Garges v. Premo

Under ORS 34.320, if a habeas plaintiff has been transferred to a different facility, the court shall “transfer the case to the jurisdiction in which the other institution is located, unless the court ‘determines that by reason of the plaintiff’s transfer the claims *** do not require immediate judicial scrutiny or are otherwise subject to dismissal’” which are to be determined on a case by case basis.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

May 1 summary

State v. Ball

“The Oregon Constitution provides that the victim of a crime has the right ‘to be heard at . . . sentencing.’” Or. Const., Art. I, §42(1)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

June 5 summaries

Miller v. Ford Motor Co.

"Under ORS 30.905(2), when an Oregon product liability action involves a product that was manufactured in a state that has no statute of repose for an equivalent civil action, then the action in Oregon also is not subject to a statute of repose."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Shearer's Foods v. Hoffnagle

“[A] party entitled to recover attorney fees incurred in litigating the merits of a fee-generating claim also may receive attorney fees incurred in determining the amount of the resulting fee award.” TriMet v. Aizawa, 362 Or 1, 3, 403 P3d 753 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Swan

“When a suspect’s decision to submit to a breath test derived from a violation of his or her Article 1, section 11, right to counsel, both the decision and the test results are subject to suppression.” State v. Spencer, 305 Or. 59, 75-76, 750 P.2d 147 (1988).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Beyer v. Rosenblum

Under ORS 250.035, ballot titles for Initiative Petitions from the Attorney General must comply with a handful of requirements about length, clarity, and neutrality.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

State v. Mansor

“A warrant must be sufficiently specific in describing the items to be seized and examined that the officers can, ‘with reasonable effort ascertain’ those items to a ‘reasonable degree of certainty.’ Blackburn/Barber, 266 Or at 35. But, even if the warrant is sufficiently specific, it must not authorize a search that is ‘broader than the supporting affidavit supplies probable cause to justify.’ State v. Reid, 319 Or 65, 71, 872 P2d 416 (1994).”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

July 0 summaries