Jayme Mori

Oregon Supreme Court (3 summaries)

Gearheart, et al. v. Public Utility Comm’n of Oregon, et al.

The Public Utility Commission of Oregon had the authority on remand to reexamine previous rates, order a refund to post-2000 ratepayers, and allow PGE to recover interest on the facility investment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Serrano

Defendant's failure to preserve an argument regarding the sufficiency of evidence will lead to an affirmation of conviction. Also, where defendant does not object to testimony in a penalty-phase hearing and that testimony would not deny defendant a fair penalty-phase hearing, the trial court is not obligated to strike that testimony.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Blachana, LLC v. Bureau of Labor and Industries

Under ORS 652.414(3) and ORS 652.301(1), the correct test to determine a “successor employee” for the purpose of Wage Security Fund reimbursement is whether it conducts essentially the same business as conducted by its predecessor, using a nonexclusive list of factors set out by the Bureau of Labor and Industries to determine whether a company conducts “essentially the same business.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (30 summaries)

State v. Bigsby

Under ORS 138.040, a judgment is not appealable where the trial court had already accepted an unqualified, written guilty plea and the parties did not make an effort to withdraw the unqualified plea and try the disputed issue.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Brown v. Guard Publishing Co.

Under ORS 192.410, a public records request is only exempt from disclosure when there is enough specificity about the contents of the contract to determine whether all of the information within it was exempt from disclosure; it does not protect other material in the contract that may be reasonably severed from the exempt material.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Kroetch v. Employment Dept.

Where the Employment Appeals Board decision fails to explain a credibility determination for whether there is good cause for a late filing it is without substantial reason.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Saunders v. Nooth

Where a defense attorney in a post-conviction relief appeal does not renew a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence at trial, the attorney does not fail to provide adequate assistance of counsel.

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

Hamilton v. Pacific Skyline, Inc.

Under ORS 656.262(11)(a), a claimant is entitled to penalties and attorney fees where a Board’s determination is not supported by substantial reason.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. McCrary

An in-trial Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test is an unlawful search without a warrant or exception to the warrant requirement because Nystagmus is not an observation made or commonly understood by the public.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Reineke

Where the prosecution impermissibly references a defendant’s invocation of his right to remain silent, the defendant’s right to a fair trial is prejudiced.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Wright

Under State v. Backstrand, and other cases, briefly holding a person’s identification card does not necessarily mean that a person is stopped; rather, a stop can take place when a request for identification is done in conjunction with other police conduct.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Worthington

Reasonable suspicion to make a stop must be supported by the totality of the circumstances and the police officer’s application of his experience to interpret those circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Kleinsasser and Lopes

Pursuant to ORS 109.119, the Court "shall grant custody" to a third party who establishes a child-parent relationship, "if to do so is in the best interest of the child."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Campbell

Pursuant to ORS 161.067(3), where the there is not sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that there is no pause for reflection “to afford the defendant an opportunity to renounce the criminal intent,” the conduct should reflect a single conviction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

City of Portland v. Huffman

The correct time to assert the doctrine of issue preclusion is before the issue is relitigated, since all information is known before the trial court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Richards

Where erroneously excluded evidence relates to the central factual issue, rather than a tangential issue, and thereby is more likely to effect the trier of fact’s determination, the evidentiary error is not harmless.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Bova v. City of Medford

Where a trial court ruling awards a plaintiff costs and attorney fees with respect to contempt and age discrimination claims, and the Court of Appeals affirms one of those claims and reverses the other, the award of costs and attorney’s fees should also be reversed with respect to the claim that is reversed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Dunmire v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

Where a petitioner shows collateral consequences that stem from a board’s decision to impose incarceration based on legally incorrect premises the petition for judicial review is moot.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Wiggins

If a dog sniff produces incriminating evidence, that would not have happened but for an unlawful search, it is the unattenuated product of that illegality and should be suppressed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Bova v. City of Medford

Under ORS 243.303(2), the Supreme Court has rejected the argument that "if there are providers available who are willing to provide [health insurance] coverage that includes retirees, the city must provide that coverage, regardless of cost or other circumstances" and reasons that the statute was not intended to be “unduly burdensome”; Under ORS 659A.030(1)(b), a plaintiff’s complaint must plead age discrimination based on a theory of disparate impact.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Dept. of Human Servs. v. D. A. S., Jr.

Under ORS 107.097(3)(a), to continue jurisdiction over a juvenile, the party asserting jurisdiction must present evidence that the juvenile would be exposed to a current threat of serious loss or injury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Nugent

In a criminal trespass case, even if the court erred by giving a single instruction rather than a double instruction, the error does not require reversal if the instruction did not mislead the jury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Harris

Under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is an error of law to admit evidence against a defendant when the defendant does not have an opportunity to confront the evidence presented against her.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Hernandez-Nolt v. Washington County

In a wrongful discharge claim, an employee’s claim cannot be considered untimely where a genuine dispute regarding the date an employee leaves employment exists, because a wrongful discharge claim does not accrue until the employee leaves the employment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Hale v. State

To grant an action for declaratory judgment, the complaint must state a justiciable controversy. A justiciable controversy must include present facts, not an issue based on future events, and must result in specific relief through a binding decree, not a non-binding advisory opinion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Sagdal

Under Article I, section 11 and Article VII (Amended), section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, it is proper for the trial court to empanel a six-person jury for a defendant’s misdemeanor case, and that jury’s verdict is valid.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Grimm v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

When an inmate, whose dangerousness is based on a disability, is found to be a danger to the community, 42 USC §§ 12101-12213, the Americans with Disabilities Act and ORS 659A.142 will not limit the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision's ability to defer the inmates release.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela

Under ORS 163.575(1)(b), when a person in possession of controlled substances knowingly permits minors to remain in a place where unlawful activity involving controlled substances is maintained that person may be convicted of endangering the welfare of a minor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Wells

A court may exercise its discretion to review for plain error to apply the law as it exists at the time an appeal is decided.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Fredinburg

When a party does not show sufficient cause to support a motion to postpone trial and a motion for self-representation would have been disruptive to the orderly conduct of the trial, those motions will be denied.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Mendoza v. Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation

An employee who is injured while performing a duty of employment, even a duty not required and off-premises, is in the course of employment if it benefits and is permitted by the employer.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Schutz v. La Costita III, Inc.

ORS 471.565(1) bars all claims against licensed server(s) of alcohol that are brought by a patron who voluntarily consumes the alcohol served.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Hernandez

The State need only present sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could draw an inference that a charged crime had occurred.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence