Alex Bluestone

Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)

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

Oregon Court of Appeals (6 summaries)

Repwest Ins. Co. v. Portland Adventist Medical Center

It is reversible error to submit questions of coverage to the jury in absence of factual questions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

State v. Servatius

Under ORS 133.076, the state must prove that, at the time of a required appearance, defendant knew of their obligation to appear in court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Cartrette v. Nooth

Under ORS 138.620(2), to obtain post-conviction relief on the ground that his lawyer’s performance did not comport with Article I, section 11, standards, a petitioner must prove facts showing (1) that his counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and (2) that petitioner suffered prejudice as a result.

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

State v. Hagner

Under OEC 404(3), prior acts evidence is admissible to demonstrate hostile motive if the State establishes a “substantial connecting link” sufficient to show “that the hostility that caused the [prior act] also motivated the charged [offense].”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Wright

Under OAR 213-008-0002(1)(b), it is plain error for a trial court to rely on departure factors which “were already captured as elements of the offense or in a consecutive sentence.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Corona v. Amsberry

Under ORS 138.525(3), “if a post-conviction court dismisses a petition as meritless and, simultaneously, rules that the post-conviction petition can be dismissed for additional, independent reasons, then ORS 138.525(3) precludes any appeal from that judgment.”

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