Willamette Law Online

(13 summaries)

Keith J. Andreys

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Rasmussen v. KrogerBallot Titles: Ballot initiatives that substantively change existing law must directly address in the ballot title the substantive change the initiative proposes to address. Additionally, the measure must address the substantive effect of a "yes" or "no" vote.(11-23-2011)
Farmers Ins. Co. v. MowryInsurance Law: The court affirmed Collins v. Farmers Ins. Co. as stare decisis that that exclusion clauses within a motor vehicle insurance policy that eliminated coverage of one insured against another insured of the same policy are unenforceable to the extent that they failed to provide the minimum coverage required by law.(09-09-2011)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
OR-OSHA v. CC & L ROOFING CO., INC.Evidence: Under ORS 654.086, OR-OSHA has the burden of persuasion to show constructive knowledge. Employer evidence to show “reasonable diligence” in compliance is not an affirmative defense “because it negates the knowledge element of a serious violation.”(02-08-2012)
Strutz v. Employment DepartmentEmployment Law: Pursuant to ORS 183.482(8)(c) the Court of Appeals reviews Employment Appeals Board decisions “to determine whether its factual findings are supported by substantial evidence,” and whether the Board's conclusions “are supported by substantial reason.”(12-29-2011)
Bailey v. NoothPost-Conviction Relief: Pursuant to ORS 138.590, a petitioner has a right to appointed counsel in post-conviction relief case. A trial court can deny a motion for substitution of counsel and order a petitioner to proceed pro se, only if necessary to achieve a fair, orderly, and efficient resolution of petitioner’s post-conviction case.(12-14-2011)
Medean v. MoellerInsurance Law: The 14-day time limit imposed by ORCP 68 C(4), and incorporated into ORS 31.555(3)(b), “is the exclusive means by which the insurer may offset its PIP reimbursement payment against the money award.”(12-07-2011)
State v. HatfieldCriminal Law: Consent to search is not an incriminating response. A request for consent to search is not interrogation under the Oregon or federal Constitutions, even after a defendant’s unequivocal request for counsel.(12-07-2011)
State v. JonesCriminal Law: OEC 404(4) bars a trial court from excluding evidence under OEC 403,“unless constitutionally required.”(11-09-2011)
Department of Human Services v. N.M.SFamily Law: When a substantial right of a parent is affected by a change in facts, such as those extrinsic to the court's jurisdiction, the parent must be given constitutionally adequate notice as to what, exactly, he or she must do to prevent or terminate jurisdiction of the state.(10-26-2011)
Russell v. U.S. Bank National AssociationEmployment Law: Under ORS 652.150, the statue of limitations for penalty wages does not begin to run until the employer pays the employee’s final wages, files an action, or after 30 days from date final wages are due.(10-12-2011)
State v. DunningCriminal Law: A police officer should be prohibited from testifying as an expert regarding technical or scientific matters if he has no expertise or formal training on the subject.(09-21-2011)
Stewart v. Kids Incorporated of Dallas, ORCivil Procedure: To survive a motion to dismiss, a negligence claim must allege facts from which a factfinder could determine: 1) defendant caused a foreseeable risk of harm, 2) of the type the law protects, 3) defendant’s conduct was unreasonable in light of the risk and the cause of plaintiff’s harm, and 5) plaintiff was of the class of persons sought to be protected.(08-31-2011)
Certain Underwriters v. Mass. Bonding and Ins. Co.Attorney Fees: Under ORS 742.061 an insurer may receive contribution for contribution attorney fees if the insured prevails at trial and obtains a recovery that exceeds the insurer’s highest tender.(08-17-2011)