Oregon Supreme Court

Opinions Filed in February 2012

Greenwood Products v. Greenwood Forest Products

The Court held the Court of Appeals’ reversal incorrectly relied on the “no obligation” provision of the asset purchase agreement in question. That particular issue was not raised in the trial court and therefore was not preserved for appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Paul v. Providence Health System-OR

Plaintiffs cannot recover for speculative, future financial harm or emotional distress related to a risk of loss when a current injury has not been claimed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Dept. of Human Services v. J.R.F.

The Supreme Court has an obligation to consider relevant context when interpreting a statute, regardless of whether it was cited by any party. The relevant context includes ORS 419B.090(4) which provides that the due process rights of parents are always implicated in the construction and application of the provisions of ORS chapter 419.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Girod v. Kroger

As written, ballot titles must be accurate, state the scope of their effect, and comply with ORS 250.035(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

Weber Coastal Bells v. Metro

Metro did not exceed its statutory authority when it approved a land use order on the basis of political necessity because the act that granted it authority for such approval did not state otherwise.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Back to Top