Oregon Supreme Court


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