Willamette Law Online

(32 summaries)

Wade M. Bowyer

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Hazell v. BrownConstitutional Law: Campaign finance reform laws, contained within Measure 47, limiting campaign contributions, are inoperable until such time that the Oregon Constitution is amended to grant these provisions a constitutional basis.(10-04-2012)
State v. MullinsAppellate Procedure: The 30 day statute of limitations for filing an appeal of a judgment under ORS 138.071(4) begins to run at the time an attorney of record for the defendant has notice of a judgment.(08-23-2012)
State v. Miskell/SinibaldiCriminal Procedure: Under ORS 133.726(7)(b), an exigency exception to the ex parte order requirement for surveillance must be demonstrated by evidence that swift action is necessary to prevent harm to persons or property, the escape of a suspect, destruction of evidence or the like.(04-26-2012)
Petock v. AsanteWorkers Compensation: For the purposes of determining reinstatement and reemployment rights of an employee recovering from a workers' compensation injury, the proper questions to ask are 1) did the claimant suffer a compensable injury, and 2) did the injury occur within the three-year statute of limitations period.(12-30-2011)
State ex rel Engweiler v. FeltonParole and Post-Prison Supervision: The parole board exceeded its statutory authority by creating intermediate hearings for those convicted of juvenile aggravated murder and the parole board has a legal duty to grant parole release hearings to the defendants.(09-01-2011)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Walker v. Providence Health System OregonWorkers Compensation: Pursuant to ORS 656.268(5)(d), an employer must respond to a request for claims closure within 10 days, and failure to respond will result in a penalty equal to 25 percent of the benefits the employee is determined to be entitled to. (01-30-2013)
State v. GilesSentencing: Defendants that are convicted of murder during the "McClain window" must receive a sentence of 300 months in prison and lifetime post-prison supervision.(12-27-2012)
State v. BeckhamRemedies: For the trial court to impose restitution after the 90 day window provided by ORS 137.106(1)(b), it must be shown that good cause existed for extending the time period.(12-05-2012)
Dept of Human Services v. J.N.Juvenile Law: Before denying a permanency plan of reunification, the juvenile court must establish that the evidence shows the plan will cause severe mental and emotional harm to the child.(11-15-2012)
Oregonian Publishing Co., LLC v. WallerCivil Procedure: Seeking declaratory relief in Circuit Court, under Oregon Public Records Law, challenging a Judge's refusal to publicly release a juvenile court order, is not a substitute for judicially appealing the Judge's determination not to release the order.(10-24-2012)
Warren v. ImperiaEvidence: The informed consent of a patient, in a medical malpractice claim, may be excluded from trial because its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect.(09-12-2012)
May Trucking Co. v. Employment Dept.Employment Law: The Employment Appeals Board must address any exemption that may apply to a claimant's claim for unemployment benefits in conjunction with determining the status of the employer/employee relationship.(08-08-2012)
State v. KolbCriminal Procedure: An officers suspicion that a suspect is under the influence of drugs, and that the suspect is in possession of the instrumentalities necessary to ingest the drugs does not by itself, provide the officer with reasonable suspicion to stop the suspect.(07-25-2012)
State v. WanCriminal Law: Officers that viewed a woman crying in the fetal position, inside of an apartment, after an argument, had sufficient evidence for the application of the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement. A jury instruction, regarding the right to self-defense during an arrest involving unlawful force may be utilized, when the defendant believed that the force being used exceeded the force reasonably necessary to make the arrest.(07-05-2012)
Dept. of Human Services v. S.N.Family Law: It is not error for a juvenile court to change a permanency plan, despite progress by a parent, when the environment that the child would be placed in would not be conducive to the child's needs.(06-27-2012)
State v. CordovaCriminal Procedure: General Order 66.1.2 of the Marion County Sheriff's Office, allowing for the search of all closed containers that could contain valuables during an inventory search following arrest, is overly broad and therefore a violation of Article 1, section 9 of the Oregon State Constitution.(06-13-2012)
Kollman v. Cell Tech International, Inc.Corporations: Claims for monetary damages are tried at law before a jury. A stockholder, asserting a breach of fiduciary duty, who suffered harm individually and will receive the benefit of the recovery, is entitled to a direct claim.(05-31-2012)
State v. MaconCriminal Law: Under ORS 164.215(1), a storage room, separated from a store by a closed door, is a separate unit from the store that patrons do not have license to enter.(04-11-2012)
Nice v. TownleyFamily Law: When applying ORS 107.137(1) in a custody determination, each of the factors listed must be considered and any one factor may not be relied on at the exclusion of another. Additionally, proper consideration must be given to the preference for the primary caregiver under ORS 107.137(1)(e).(03-14-2012)
Dept. of Human Services v. W. S. C.Family Law: The Oregon statutory limitation on the creation of judicial remedies for failing to file a timely appeal of a permanency hearing comports with due process unless specific circumstances arise.(02-29-2012)
Derkatsch v. Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness & WilkinsonAttorney Fees: Attorney's fees can be recovered from the client's trust pursuant to ORS 125.095 for services rendered while the client was designated a protected person.(02-15-2012)
Pressing Matters v. CarrWorkers Compensation: To preserve a claim of premature closure, it is sufficient that the record contain information from which the appellant reviewer could determine that the claimant was challenging the closure of the claim.(02-08-2012)
Dept. of Human Services v. N. T.Family Law: A Juvenile Court cannot rely on extrinsic facts outside of its jurisdictional judgment when it assesses a permanency plan where such a plan does not implicitly or explicitly encompass those extrinsic facts.(01-25-2012)
Robinson v. Harley-Davidson Motor CompanyCivil Procedure: To establish personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff must allege sufficient minimum contacts by the defendant with the forum state, and that the claim arises out of those contacts.(01-05-2012)
State v. FellerCriminal Law: The admission of a diagnosis of "concerning" for sexual abuse, without supporting physical evidence is plain error.(12-29-2011)
Williamson v. Government Employees Insurance co.Attorney Fees: Attorney fees are not recoverable under ORS 20.080 in a decision awarding "money had and received" because such recovery is based on a contract implied in law.(12-14-2011)
Hammond v. HammondProperty Law: In a 1985 deed conveying title, "as survivor," is an ambiguous term and should be interpreted using extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intent.(12-07-2011)
Cruze v. HudlerTort Law: A predicate conviction is not a prerequisite to a civil ORICO claim based on racketeering activities. To have a cause of action under ORICO, plaintiff only need demonstrate defendants violation is based on racketeering activity.(11-23-2011)
State v. MinowCriminal Law: A defendant commits the crime of attempting to drive while intoxicated if he or she attempts to get into the driver's seat of a vehicle, even if a third party is in the process of intervening.(10-26-2011)
State v. BraukmanCriminal Procedure: To determine whether an officer had reasonable suspicion that a person is under the influence, the court takes into account the officer’s experience and whether the officer found specific, articulable, facts that could raise a reasonable suspicion that the defendant may be under the influence of intoxicants.(10-19-2011)
State v. SupanchickEvidence: The forfeiture exclusion to the hearsay doctrine does not require a defendant to intend that his wrongful act prevent a witness from testifying; evidence otherwise excludable as prejudicial, may be admitted on cross examination if relied upon by defendant’s expert witness; and testimony by expert witnesses must be in regards to a relevant issue.(09-28-2011)
State v. WedelCivil Procedure: The admission of evidence of a diagnosis of child sexual abuse in the absence of physical evidence is plain error.(08-10-2011)