Willamette Law Online

(15 summaries)

Spencer Bailey

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Jenkins v. Board of Parole and Post Prison SupervisionParole and Post-Prison Supervision: The 1999 amendments to ORS 144.335(3) did not alter the requirement of providing a substantial reason, under the substantial evidence review standard of scrutiny the Board of Parole is subjected to, for postponing the release of prison inmates. (09-18-2014)
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
State v. GarrisonEvidence: Under OEC 403 and OEC 404, character evidence admitted will not be considered to be an abuse of a trial courts discretion where it is deemed to have little prejudicial effect and the jury has been offered a curative jury instruction. A curative instruction will be assumed to be followed by the jury unless there is an “overwhelming possibility” that the jury was incapable of following it.(11-13-2014)
State v. ChenCriminal Law: Under ORS 475.860, a reasonable jury could convict a defendant on a charge of delivery of marijuana when presented with evidence of their frequent presence at a grow operation, transportation of marijuana trimmings, and large amounts of drugs on the property. These factors considered cumulatively create a logical inference that a defendant intends to sell the marijuana, which constitutes delivery. (10-29-2014)
State v. WilsonEvidence: Though truth vouching testimony must be stricken sua sponte by the trial court, testimony regarding the manner in which a victim communicates information is admissible because it is most closely related to the victim’s demeanor and not related to whether the witness in fact believed the victim testimony.(10-22-2014)
Department of Human Services v. H.H.Juvenile Law: When one parent, who otherwise appears to be a fit parent, allows their children to be home alone with a parent who has caused harm to a child, the totality of the circumstances tend to show that there will be a reasonable likelihood of additional harm to the child. (10-08-2014)
Housing Authority of Jackson County v. City of MedfordLand Use: A petition, the resolution of which would not have a practical effect on either party to it, must be dismissed for being not being justiciable, and therefore moot. (10-01-2014)
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)