Willamette Law Online

Oregon Supreme Court

( 6 summaries )

Opinions Filed in October 2011

Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners

Land Use: To determine the expense ratio in a Measure 49 vested rights pathway exemption, the court considers the following questions: What is the expected cost of the project? What is the expense ratio? Is the expense ratio substantial? As to the last question, ‘substantial’ is relative to the cost of the project, where a small ratio may equal millions of dollars.

(Filing Date: 10-20-2011)

Arken v. City of Portland

Employment Law: When the Supreme Court strikes down the two provisions in a law specifying how the Public Employee Retirement Board will collect excess benefits paid in 1999, PERB may, instead, exercise its authority under ORS 238.715 and issue an order to recover the funds.

(Filing Date: 10-06-2011)

Balboa Apartments v. Patrick

Civil Procedure: Provided that requirements under ORCP 23 A and ORS 105.135 are both met, plaintiff's failure to serve a summons and amended complaint within one day of paying filing fees is not grounds for dismissal.

(Filing Date: 10-06-2011)

Goodson v. PERS

Employment Law: PERB does not have the statutory authority to promise “Window Retirees” benefits based on a 20% earning credit for 1999, because there was neither a contractual obligation, nor a law entitling them to interest in such a credit such as to claim an impairment of contract or deprivation of due process when PERB acts to recover excess benefits.

(Filing Date: 10-06-2011)

Rasmussen v. Kroger

Ballot Titles: The Supreme Court may review a certified ballot title description in order to ensure that it complies with the guidelines of ORS 250.035, concerning definiteness and specificity.

(Filing Date: 10-06-2011)

State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak

Criminal Procedure: The automobile exception to the warrant requirement defined in State v. Brown does not extend to parked, immobile, and unoccupied vehicles, absent exigent circumstances.

(Filing Date: 10-06-2011)