Michael Mickelson

Oregon Supreme Court (5 summaries)

Sather v. SAIF

Under ORS 656.218, a worker’s estate may receive an award of benefits if the worker died prior to a final determination of benefits and in the absence of persons otherwise eligible to receive them, but if the estate is not satisfied, it cannot pursue a claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Smith v. Franke

In order to constitute inappropriate vouching for a minor, a witness’s testimony in regards to the minor’s ability to distinguish between truth and lie is insufficient.

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

State v. Ziska/Garza

A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if he uses that weapon to threaten the victim even without any intent to harm the victim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Brumwell v. Premo

An attorney’s client may obtain a protective order concerning communications not reasonably needed by the attorney to defend himself against breach of duty allegations.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Professional Responsibility

Dunn v. City of Milwaukie

To show a government taking of property under the Oregon Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 18, a plaintiff must show that an inevitable result of the government’s actions was the invasion of the plaintiff's property.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (23 summaries)

State v. Ferguson

Pursuant to Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, a police officer may lawfully extend a routine traffic stop if he, given the totality of the circumstances, has a reasonable suspicion of further criminal activity and if his subsequent investigations are reasonably connected to that criminal activity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. McMullin

ORS 136.420 is not violated by out-of-court statements as long as the defendant’s state confrontational rights are met. Further, a law dealing with multiple subjects satisfies Article IV of the Oregon Constitution if it contains a “unifying principle logically connecting all provisions.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Underhill

A defendant’s statements during a polygraph test must be made voluntarily in order to be admissible.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Korth

To show that a criminal defendant had knowledge, the evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge of the particular crime for which he is charged.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Starr

Admissible hearsay statements do not violate the state constitution’s Confrontation Clause if the declarant is available and the statements have adequate indicia of reliability.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Cox v. Howton

In order for a post-conviction court to grant relief due to inadequate counsel, it must be shown that the attorney’s error was the but-for cause of the client’s decision.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Vukanovich v. Kine

In regards to a Judgment Not Withstanding the Verdict, the Court will look to see if there is any evidence to support the jury’s verdict. If there is, the JNOV will not be sustained.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. R. L. W.

Pursuant to ORS 427.290, the State must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that a person has an intellectual disability so that he is incapable of caring for himself or is a danger to himself or to others.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Digesti

Under ORS 163.305(2), which defines forcible compulsion necessary for first-degree sexual assault, the compulsive physical force exhibited against the victim need not be applied directly to the physical body but need only be sufficient to compel the victim to submit to the sexual conduct.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

SAIF v. Thompson

Under ORS 656.802(4), the “clear and convincing” standard of proof required to rebut the firefighter’s presumption under Workers Comp law does not require the defendant to prove an alternative cause of the condition, only that it’s asserted claim is “highly probable.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Glazier

If the trial court commits an error in sentencing that requires resentencing, the appellate court will remand the entire case for resentencing. ORS 138.222(5)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Smith v. Franke

In order to constitute inappropriate vouching for a minor, a witness’s testimony in regards to the minor’s ability to distinguish between truth and lie is insufficient.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Fujimoto

When the same conduct satisfies more than one theft statute that do not each contain an element that the other does not, the theft offenses will merge into one offense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Moulton

In order to survive a motion to suppress evidence, the State must prove that a police officer’s warrantless search or seizure was constitutionally justified by an exception to the warrant requirement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Gordon v. Teacher Standards and Practices Commission

A plaintiff must exhaust all administrative remedies, including requesting an agency hearing, before objecting to the substance of an administrative order before the court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Miller

In order to initiate a valid DUII search under the state and U.S. Constitutions, a police officer must have probable cause, a subjective belief that is objectively reasonable, that the driver being searched was driving under the influence of intoxicants; the officer may rely on a totality of the circumstances, including his own experience and judgment, to form this probable cause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Russum

If a prosecutor makes an accidental intrusion into the defendant’s privileged communications with his client, the defendant bears the burden of proving that his constitutional rights have been prejudiced.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Lee

It is not an illegal seizure of property if the officer does so in a reasonable attempt to protect himself or if he has a reasonable suspicion that the citizen poses an immediate threat of serious physical injury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Buchalski

When any legal errors made by the lower court are found to be harmless, the Court will affirm the decision of the lower court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Dept. of Human Services v. R.B.

A juvenile court may change a child permanency plan when its original jurisdictional judgment would put a reasonable parent on notice that the bases for the that decision would be used in a change of permanency plan.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Straughan

A defendant’s motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds should be granted when the delay caused by the state is both unexpected and unreasonable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Whitlow

A court will balance the actual prejudice caused to a defendant by the state’s pre-indictment and speedy trial delay with the state’s justification for that delay in deciding whether or not to grant dismissal of charges.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Blankenship v. Smalley

Under ORS 67.040, a business partner’s actions will be binding on his partner unless the other party had actual knowledge or notice of that partner’s lack of authority to bind his partner.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law