Oregon Supreme Court

Opinions Filed in July 2012

Mead v. Legacy Health System

When a physician has not personally seen a patient, whether an implied physician-patient relationship is created depends on whether the physician knows or reasonably should know that he or she is diagnosing a patient’s condition or is treating the patient.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

In re Obert

A suspension of 6 months from the practice of law is reasonable for the violation of 7 Rules of Professional Conduct stemming from the misappropriation of client funds and failure to provide competent representation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Professional Responsibility

State v. Leistiko

Prior acts are admissible if they are "sufficiently relevant" to show the defendant acted with intent in the charged offense. However, the admissibility of the prior act is dependent on the circumstances. A single act will likely not qualify, but a complex act may qualify.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Powell

Under ORS 136.425(1), incriminatory statements that are made under promises of leniency are inadmissible as evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Willemsen v. Invacare Corporation

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court Opinion, J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, personal jurisdiction is established when a company has a "regular course of sales," or a "regular...flow" of sales within the forum state.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Back to Top