Oregon Supreme Court

Opinions Filed in December 2011

A.G. v. Guitron

Civil Procedure: ORCP 44C requires plaintiffs to produce all written reports of any examinations relating to the injuries of the claim upon request by defendant, regardless of whether their treating physician, or an expert retained solely for litigation performs the examination.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Petock v. Asante

For the purposes of determining reinstatement and reemployment rights of an employee recovering from a workers' compensation injury, the proper questions to ask are 1) did the claimant suffer a compensable injury, and 2) did the injury occur within the three-year statute of limitations period.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Robinson v. Public Employees Retirement Board

Concerning the PERS statutory contract - when a court invalidates a statutory mechanism, the Legislative Assembly remains free to provide a remedy for those who have lost payments they would have received pursuant to the mechanism.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Rainoldi

The crime "felon in possession of a firearm" does not require a culpable mental state; if it did, it would encourage ignorance of whether a person is a felon or not, and frustrate the purpose of the statute, which is to keep firearms away from criminals.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

White v. Public Employees Retirement Board

When a trustee has a fiduciary duty, his or her actions will be reviewed based on the reasonableness of his or her decision-making, rather than purely weighing the costs versus the benefits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trusts and Estates

Girod v. Kroger

A ballot title’s caption must be specific enough for voters to identify the major effects of the proposed measure.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

Williams v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company

The State of Oregon need not be a party to a claim, or hold an interest in a claim, because its right to a 60% share of punitive damages results from the operation of law, and not from any claim it is involved with. Thus, because the state's right to 60% of punitive damages does not constitute a claim, it is not a "released claim" subject to the Master Settlement Agreement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Back to Top