Willamette Law Online

(18 summaries)

Raun Atkinson

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Howell v. BoyleRemedies: 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.(03-14-2013)
Assn of Oregon Corrections Employees v. StateLabor Law: When an employer asserts an affirmative defense to a charge that it changed the status quo unilaterally, the Employment Labor Relations Board (ERB) may consider the contract terms to evaluate whether the union waived the right to bargain about such changes. This means the ERB is not required to first consider the terms of the contract under the status quo rubric before determining if a waiver exists.(01-17-2013)
State v. LeistikoEvidence: 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.(07-19-2012)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Dial Temporary Help Service v. DLF Int'l SeedsContract Law: In a breach of contract claim, ambiguity alone does not make summary judgment inappropriate, rather, a triable factual issue stemming from the existence of competing extrinsic evidence does.(03-13-2013)
Tilton v. LeeAttorney Fees: Under ORS 116.103, reduction of a requested attorney fee award by a trial court does not constitute an objection in an estate proceeding.(02-13-2013)
State v. BrockCriminal Procedure: A prior unlawful act will not taint the consent given to authorities unless the Defendant can prove some factual nexus between the unlawful act and the consent given.(12-19-2012)
D.A. v. WhiteCivil Stalking Protective Order: Under ORS 163.738, the "official duties" exceptions from ORS 163.755(1)(c), will not apply, effectively barring the use of a work place incident from counting towards the issuance of a stalking protective order, if the Respondent "intended" to intimidate the petitioner with the workplace incident.(12-05-2012)
Schutz v. SAIF Corp.Workers Compensation: Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), even if an employee's primary motive for engaging in any social activities outside of the work environment was work related, the employee's choices to drink enough to be intoxicated and then drive home are not work related and thus any injury sustained did not arise from employment. Therefore, workers compensation will not be available for an injured worker in this situation.(11-15-2012)
State v. GarnerCriminal Law: Under ORS 135.747, a defendant is considered "brought to trial" when the trial commences, even if it eventually ends in a mistrial.(10-24-2012)
Providence Health System Oregon v. WalkerAdministrative Law: ORS 656.262(7)(c) requires an insurer or self-insured employer to reopen a claim for processing upon "any finding" of compensability, regardless of any appeal or possibility of review. Additionally, a penalty and attorneys fees cannot be imposed when the employer had a legitimate doubt as to its obligations.(09-26-2012)
Spaid v. 4-R Equipment, LLCCivil Law: A trial court does not err by declining to award prejudgment interest when the jury does not resolve issues of fact with regard to the award of prejudgment interest, unless the pertinent facts were undisputed.(09-12-2012)
State v. NyhuisCriminal Law: With regard to reckless burning under ORS 164.335(1), the term "property" means something that has market value or has a replacement cost. In order for the replacement cost alternative to be used, some other person must have a legal or equitable interest in it.(08-22-2012)
State v. Perez-ChiCriminal Law: If an erroneous jury instruction is given and a conviction could have been based on that erroneous instruction, the instruction was not harmless and the case must be remanded.(08-15-2012)
State v. EdwardsCriminal Procedure: ORS 164.415(1) and its three subsections (a)-(c) are alternative theories that define a single crime. Therefore, it is improper to charge a person with multiple counts stemming from a single incident that simultaneously satisfy multiple subsections of ORS 164.415(1).(07-05-2012)
State v. VanornumAppellate Procedure: An objection to instructions given by the trial judge must adequately identify the asserted error to the trial court so “the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.” If the objection is too “generalized,” it will not be preserved for review on appeal.(06-27-2012)
Knotts v. Psychiatric Security Review BoardCivil Commitment: Decisions of the Psychiatric Security Review Board must be supported by "substantial reasoning" in order to be affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Thus, if the board's reasoning cannot be ascertained or is faulty, the order must be reversed and remanded.(06-13-2012)
US Market #180, LLC v. Oregon Liquor Control CommissionAdministrative Law: Under OAR 845-006-0335(1), an employee selling alcoholic beverages is only required to visually verify a purchaser's age when the employee is not using age verification equipment under OAR 845-005-0335(5).(05-09-2012)
State v. EverettCriminal Law: The crime of solicitation, ORS 161.435(1), occurs when a person solicits an intermediary to procure a third party to commit the intended crime so long as the intermediary is aware of that intended crime.(03-28-2012)