Elijah Brown

Oregon Supreme Court (2 summaries)

State v. Delong

A defendant's voluntary consent to a search may be sufficient to demonstrate that an officer's failure to give a Miranda warning did not affect, or only had a tenuous connection, to evidence discovered during the search.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Moro v. State of Oregon

The legislature cannot enact laws that would retroactively disable a defined benefit of government employee pension plans (PERS), and to do so would be in violation of the Oregon Constitution. The legislature can, however, prospectively change those benefits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (30 summaries)

State v. Hess

When expert testimony that is proffered has no bearing on the capability of a criminal Defendant to perform a certain act, when that performance is the sole matter in question, it is irrelevant and should be excluded.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

West Hills Development Co. v. Chartic Claims

If an injured claimant can recover under the allegations made in the complaint upon any basis for which the insurer affords coverage, that insurer is obligated to defend the insured. Additionally, even if not specifically alleged, extrinsic evidence proving the insured-insurer relationship existed, can be used.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Dunn v. City of Milwaukie

Under Oregon's Discovery Rule and ORS 30.275, the timeline to file a claim begins as soon as a harm is cognizable, and is not tolled to the date that the full extent of the harm is recognized.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Driver

It is a violation of the right of a criminal defendant to have a speedy trial where the State itself delayed a trial for twenty months by not providing discovery.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Landye Bennett Blumstein, LLP v. Jeffrey S. Mutnick, PC

A partnership agreement should be analyzed for clear language, and if ambiguous, extrinsic evidence can be employed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

State v. Andersen

The automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 9, requires that the officer executing the search must have witnessed the vehicle in motion in connection with the crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Pierce

Under OEC 1002, a live camera feed, for purposes of best evidence, is more akin to a phone conversation than it is a recorded video feed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Swinney

An officer's expert testimony regarding sexual grooming and abuse is relevant under OEC 401, admissible under OEC 702, and does not constitute an impermissible comment for a victim's credibility.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Wheeler

Under both ORS 151.505(3) and 161.665(4), a court may not order a convicted criminal defendant to pay his court-appointed attorney fees, unless the defendant can or may be able to pay them.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

City of Portland v. Portland Firefighters' Assn.

The duty of the Employment Relations Board, under ORS 240.115 and 240.086(2), is to review and enforce arbitration decisions, and may, pursuant to ORS 243.676(2)(c), take action to enforce those decisions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

State v. Ryder

Under ORS 161.155(2)(b) and 163.165(1)(e), the least degree of collusion is enough to sustain a conviction of aiding and abetting a crime; however, mere presence during the crime is not enough to sustain such a conviction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Deckard v. Bunch

Under ORS 471.565, a statutory liability is created for social hosts who serve visibly intoxicated persons.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Hite

Under Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, an administrative inventory search policy must not be overly broad nor allow for officer discretion outside the stated policy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Evergreen West Business Center, LLC v. Emmert

When expenses are incurred in good faith, without being part of a calculated breach, those expenses should not be reimbursed as damages.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Gordon v. Board of Parole

In 1977 Oregon adopted a "matrix" standard in place of the former "discretionary" system which eventually gave rise to a new development for board review. Under the new system, the board could only consider the current psychological condition rather than the entire record. To determine what standard to use, a dispositive issue is when the inmate elected to enroll in the system.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Stanton

Under Oregon's "anti-merger" statute--ORS 161.067--a trial court, before issuing separate convictions arising from one incident, must determine if either (1) there were separate victims, or (2) there was sufficient pause between crimes committed against one victim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Lewis v. Beyer

Without changing the analysis or outcome, the Court offers clarification on a few matters of a prior decision of the same name.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

State v. Lambert

Revisiting a previous decision where the case was vacated and remanded for the trial court to sort out the inevitable discovery of evidence after an illegal search, the Court held that their decision to vacate and remand was error and, under Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, evidence obtained after a person's rights are violated is tainted evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Justice and Crum

In order to properly preserve an issue for appeal, the matter must be clearly and unequivocally objected before judgment is entered, rather than a party waiting on an adverse or undesirable judgment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Abraham

Under OEC 401, when a defendant--after the alleged crime--makes a statement of intent to commit that same crime in the future cannot be admitted as evidence of intent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Clements

Where a criminal defendant agreed to a plea deal, but the State's sentencing recommendation was denied and the criminal defendant then fled for many years, what is the trial court bound to. Here, the defendant asserts three assignments of error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Hockeman

Under the privacy interests implied in Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon State Constitution, when a property owner intends to exclude visitors from any portion of the property, that part of the property should have viewable signs that when approaching, the visitor can reasonably see and infer the property owner's intent to exclude.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Anderson

Under ORS 163.415, the requirement that the victim not give consent is not a mens rea issue.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Baker v. Croslin

Under ORS 471.565, the key factor in assessing a social host's liability is how much control the host had over the consumption of alcohol; when a host has no control over alcohol consumption, he is not liable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Moore

Under the Article I, § 9 of the Oregon Constitution, an officer has a reasonable suspicion if he subjectively believes that the person has committed a crime; that belief, however, must be objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Bisby

A criminal defendant has the right to object to improper venue, but only in a pretrial motion as it is not a material allegation under Article I, § 11 of the Oregon Constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

In re Hall and Buth-Hall

Under ORS 107.407 and ORS 107.412(2), a person relying on spousal support must show a reasonable effort to become self-sufficient by exercising reasonable options, even if those options turn out to be fruitless.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Nielsen v. Employment Dept.

Under ORS 657.176(2)(c) (see also OAR 471-030-0038(4)), a former employee seeking unemployment benefits who resigns her position rather than confront her employer or file a BOLI complaint can still qualify for those benefits, as long as it was reasonable for her to do so.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Cuevas

The admission of evidence, while denied for one purpose, may be admitted for an unrelated purpose, so long as it remains within the purpose or scope of what is being examined. When determining a sentence, courts are to use the “shift-to-I” rule; however, the courts failure to do so may not necessarily be a reversible error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Kenny

Under ORS 133.076(1), the phrase "issued under" merely describes the type of citation created and does not create an additional element of the offense; in establishing "knowingly" under the same statute, "logically relevant" testimony under OEC 401 is permitted, including testimony of a defendant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law