Willamette Law Online

(9 summaries)

Spencer Bailey

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc.Tort Law: An ORCP 47 E affidavit which states an expert will testify to causation is sufficient to raise a question of fact and avoid summary judgment. ORS 30.920, Oregon's strict liability statute, does not apply to apply to service transactions. (05-08-2014)
Department of Human Services v. S.M.Juvenile Law: Under ORS 419B.372 and ORS 419B.376, the Department of Human Services has the legislative authority to immunize children while acting as the children’s legal custodian.(04-24-2014)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Oregon v. HuntEvidence: ORS 131.615. The reasonable suspicion of an officer to ask someone for identification and run a warrant check reasonably related to an investigation is justified if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that that person has committed a crime.(09-04-2014)
State v. GoldmanCivil Law: If nonappearance on a citation constitutes "mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect" under ORS 153.820(7), an individual is relieved from the doubling of fines. (08-27-2014)
Field v. CourseyAppellate Procedure: As determined by ORAP 5.45(1), generally no argument of error may be asserted in an appellate court that has not been preserved in the lower court.(08-13-2014)
State v. CookEvidence: Erroneous admission of hearsay evidence is unacceptable only when the error is harmful in that it has a possible influence on the verdict rendered. When the erroneously admitted hearsay evidence is central to the parties’ theory of the case and their credibility, the error will be considered harmful and influential to the rendered verdict. (07-30-2014)
Wright v. NoothPost-Conviction Relief: In regards to findings of fact, such as with a defendant’s waiver to testify on their own behalf, the Appellate Court will defer to the post-conviction court’s records. Additionally, in order to find error in counsel’s decision not to object to testimony, the testimony must have been of a kind that would have likely provided evidence that would have altered the outcome of the proceeding. (07-23-2014)
State v. AshkinsCriminal Law: A jury instruction requiring all jurors to agree on which occurrence constituted a crime is not required when the evidence shows multiple occurrences of the offense and does not give jurors the ability to factually distinguish one occurrence from another in a manner that could lead to differing conclusions about the commission of the crime.(05-29-2014)
State v. FoxCriminal Law: Under ORS 162.005(2), a member of the Oregon National Guard qualifies as a public servant for the purposes of a sexual coercion charge. (04-23-2014)