Raun Atkinson

Oregon Supreme Court (3 summaries)

Howell v. Boyle

Under the "remedy clause," Article 1 Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution, the legislature can limit the amount a plaintiff can recover in tort. Only a limitation that leaves plaintiff "wholly without" a remedy, or one that is not "substantial" is prohibited by the clause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Assn of Oregon Corrections Employees v. State

When an employer asserts an affirmative defense to a charge that it changed the status quo unilaterally, the Employment Labor Relations Board (ERB) may consider the contract terms to evaluate whether the union waived the right to bargain about such changes. This means the ERB is not required to first consider the terms of the contract under the status quo rubric before determining if a waiver exists.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

State v. Leistiko

Prior acts are admissible if they are "sufficiently relevant" to show the defendant acted with intent in the charged offense. However, the admissibility of the prior act is dependent on the circumstances. A single act will likely not qualify, but a complex act may qualify.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Oregon Court of Appeals (15 summaries)

Dial Temporary Help Service v. DLF Int'l Seeds

In a breach of contract claim, ambiguity alone does not make summary judgment inappropriate, rather, a triable factual issue stemming from the existence of competing extrinsic evidence does.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Tilton v. Lee

Under ORS 116.103, reduction of a requested attorney fee award by a trial court does not constitute an objection in an estate proceeding.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Brock

A prior unlawful act will not taint the consent given to authorities unless the Defendant can prove some factual nexus between the unlawful act and the consent given.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

D.A. v. White

Under ORS 163.738, the "official duties" exceptions from ORS 163.755(1)(c), will not apply, effectively barring the use of a work place incident from counting towards the issuance of a stalking protective order, if the Respondent "intended" to intimidate the petitioner with the workplace incident.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Stalking Protective Order

Schutz v. SAIF Corp.

Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), even if an employee's primary motive for engaging in any social activities outside of the work environment was work related, the employee's choices to drink enough to be intoxicated and then drive home are not work related and thus any injury sustained did not arise from employment. Therefore, workers compensation will not be available for an injured worker in this situation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Garner

Under ORS 135.747, a defendant is considered "brought to trial" when the trial commences, even if it eventually ends in a mistrial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Providence Health System Oregon v. Walker

ORS 656.262(7)(c) requires an insurer or self-insured employer to reopen a claim for processing upon "any finding" of compensability, regardless of any appeal or possibility of review. Additionally, a penalty and attorneys fees cannot be imposed when the employer had a legitimate doubt as to its obligations.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Spaid v. 4-R Equipment, LLC

A trial court does not err by declining to award prejudgment interest when the jury does not resolve issues of fact with regard to the award of prejudgment interest, unless the pertinent facts were undisputed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

State v. Nyhuis

With regard to reckless burning under ORS 164.335(1), the term "property" means something that has market value or has a replacement cost. In order for the replacement cost alternative to be used, some other person must have a legal or equitable interest in it.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Perez-Chi

If an erroneous jury instruction is given and a conviction could have been based on that erroneous instruction, the instruction was not harmless and the case must be remanded.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Edwards

ORS 164.415(1) and its three subsections (a)-(c) are alternative theories that define a single crime. Therefore, it is improper to charge a person with multiple counts stemming from a single incident that simultaneously satisfy multiple subsections of ORS 164.415(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Vanornum

An objection to instructions given by the trial judge must adequately identify the asserted error to the trial court so “the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.” If the objection is too “generalized,” it will not be preserved for review on appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Knotts v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

Decisions of the Psychiatric Security Review Board must be supported by "substantial reasoning" in order to be affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Thus, if the board's reasoning cannot be ascertained or is faulty, the order must be reversed and remanded.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

US Market #180, LLC v. Oregon Liquor Control Commission

Under OAR 845-006-0335(1), an employee selling alcoholic beverages is only required to visually verify a purchaser's age when the employee is not using age verification equipment under OAR 845-005-0335(5).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Everett

The crime of solicitation, ORS 161.435(1), occurs when a person solicits an intermediary to procure a third party to commit the intended crime so long as the intermediary is aware of that intended crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law