Howell v. Boyle
Under the "remedy clause," Article 1 Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution, the legislature can limit the amount a plaintiff can recover in tort. Only a limitation that leaves plaintiff "wholly without" a remedy, or one that is not "substantial" is prohibited by the clause.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
CenturyTel, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue
The Court will uphold an administrative rule defining a statutory term where the definition is consistent with the term as defined by the statute.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Cocchiara v. Lithia Motors, Inc.
An employee may be able to prove that he reasonably relied on an offer of employment for a job that is terminable at-will under the theories of promissory estopple and fraudulent misrepresentation.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Crystal Communications, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue
The gain attributed to a public utilities' sale of assets in a liquidation may reasonably be determined by the Department of Revenue as apportionable "business income" consistent with the term's statutory definition found in ORS 314.610(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Doe v. Lake Oswego School District
For a tort claim to accrue, a plaintiff must have discovered "not only the conduct of the defendant, but also the tortious nature of that conduct." Whether the nature of the defendant's act is generally known is a question of fact. The circumstances to consider include: plaintiff's status as a minor, the relationship between the parties, and the nature of the harm suffered.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Lindell v. Kalugin
Under ORCP 44A, the burden to establish good cause supporting a limitation or condition imposed on discovery is on the party requesting the limitation or condition. In a mandamus proceeding, the Court is limited to reviewing the trial court's decision for clear error.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure