Willamette Law Online

(30 summaries)

Elijah Brown

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. DelongCriminal Procedure: A defendant's voluntary consent to a search may be sufficient to demonstrate that an officer's failure to give a Miranda warning did not affect, or only had a tenuous connection, to evidence discovered during the search. (06-18-2015)
Moro v. State of OregonEmployment Law: The legislature cannot enact laws that would retroactively disable a defined benefit of government employee pension plans (PERS), and to do so would be in violation of the Oregon Constitution. The legislature can, however, prospectively change those benefits. (04-30-2015)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Dunn v. City of Milwaukie Tort Law: Under Oregon's Discovery Rule and ORS 30.275, the timeline to file a claim begins as soon as a harm is cognizable, and is not tolled to the date that the full extent of the harm is recognized. (04-22-2015)
State v. DriverCriminal Procedure: It is a violation of the right of a criminal defendant to have a speedy trial where the State itself delayed a trial for twenty months by not providing discovery. (04-08-2015)
Landye Bennett Blumstein, LLP v. Jeffrey S. Mutnick, PCContract Law: A partnership agreement should be analyzed for clear language, and if ambiguous, extrinsic evidence can be employed. (04-01-2015)
State v. AndersenCivil Procedure: The automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 9, requires that the officer executing the search must have witnessed the vehicle in motion in connection with the crime. (03-18-2015)
State v. PierceEvidence: Under OEC 1002, a live camera feed, for purposes of best evidence, is more akin to a phone conversation than it is a recorded video feed. (03-18-2015)
State v. SwinneyEvidence: An officer's expert testimony regarding sexual grooming and abuse is relevant under OEC 401, admissible under OEC 702, and does not constitute an impermissible comment for a victim's credibility. (03-11-2015)
State v. WheelerSentencing: Under both ORS 151.505(3) and 161.665(4), a court may not order a convicted criminal defendant to pay his court-appointed attorney fees, unless the defendant can or may be able to pay them. (02-04-2015)
City of Portland v. Portland Firefighters' Assn.Arbitration: The duty of the Employment Relations Board, under ORS 240.115 and 240.086(2), is to review and enforce arbitration decisions, and may, pursuant to ORS 243.676(2)(c), take action to enforce those decisions. (12-10-2014)
State v. RyderCriminal Law: Under ORS 161.155(2)(b) and 163.165(1)(e), the least degree of collusion is enough to sustain a conviction of aiding and abetting a crime; however, mere presence during the crime is not enough to sustain such a conviction.(11-26-2014)
Deckard v. BunchTort Law: Under ORS 471.565, a statutory liability is created for social hosts who serve visibly intoxicated persons. (11-19-2014)
State v. HiteCriminal Procedure: Under Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, an administrative inventory search policy must not be overly broad nor allow for officer discretion outside the stated policy. (11-05-2014)
Evergreen West Business Center, LLC v. EmmertRemedies: When expenses are incurred in good faith, without being part of a calculated breach, those expenses should not be reimbursed as damages.(10-29-2014)
Gordon v. Board of ParoleCriminal Procedure: In 1977 Oregon adopted a "matrix" standard in place of the former "discretionary" system which eventually gave rise to a new development for board review. Under the new system, the board could only consider the current psychological condition rather than the entire record. To determine what standard to use, a dispositive issue is when the inmate elected to enroll in the system. (10-22-2014)
State v. StantonCriminal Law: Under Oregon's "anti-merger" statute--ORS 161.067--a trial court, before issuing separate convictions arising from one incident, must determine if either (1) there were separate victims, or (2) there was sufficient pause between crimes committed against one victim. (10-15-2014)
Lewis v. BeyerRemedies: Without changing the analysis or outcome, the Court offers clarification on a few matters of a prior decision of the same name. (10-08-2014)
State v. LambertCriminal Procedure: Revisiting a previous decision where the case was vacated and remanded for the trial court to sort out the inevitable discovery of evidence after an illegal search, the Court held that their decision to vacate and remand was error and, under Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, evidence obtained after a person's rights are violated is tainted evidence. (10-01-2014)
Justice and CrumAppellate Procedure: In order to properly preserve an issue for appeal, the matter must be clearly and unequivocally objected before judgment is entered, rather than a party waiting on an adverse or undesirable judgment. (09-24-2014)
State v. AbrahamEvidence: Under OEC 401, when a defendant--after the alleged crime--makes a statement of intent to commit that same crime in the future cannot be admitted as evidence of intent. (09-04-2014)
State v. ClementsCriminal Procedure: Where a criminal defendant agreed to a plea deal, but the State's sentencing recommendation was denied and the criminal defendant then fled for many years, what is the trial court bound to. Here, the defendant asserts three assignments of error. (08-20-2014)
State v. HockemanCriminal Procedure: Under the privacy interests implied in Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon State Constitution, when a property owner intends to exclude visitors from any portion of the property, that part of the property should have viewable signs that when approaching, the visitor can reasonably see and infer the property owner's intent to exclude. (08-13-2014)
State v. AndersonCriminal Law: Under ORS 163.415, the requirement that the victim not give consent is not a mens rea issue. (07-30-2014)
Baker v. CroslinTort Law: Under ORS 471.565, the key factor in assessing a social host's liability is how much control the host had over the consumption of alcohol; when a host has no control over alcohol consumption, he is not liable. (07-09-2014)
State v. MooreCriminal Procedure: Under the Article I, § 9 of the Oregon Constitution, an officer has a reasonable suspicion if he subjectively believes that the person has committed a crime; that belief, however, must be objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. (07-02-2014)
State v. BisbyCriminal Procedure: A criminal defendant has the right to object to improper venue, but only in a pretrial motion as it is not a material allegation under Article I, § 11 of the Oregon Constitution. (06-18-2014)
In re Hall and Buth-HallFamily Law: Under ORS 107.407 and ORS 107.412(2), a person relying on spousal support must show a reasonable effort to become self-sufficient by exercising reasonable options, even if those options turn out to be fruitless. (06-11-2014)
Nielsen v. Employment Dept.Employment Law: Under ORS 657.176(2)(c) (see also OAR 471-030-0038(4)), a former employee seeking unemployment benefits who resigns her position rather than confront her employer or file a BOLI complaint can still qualify for those benefits, as long as it was reasonable for her to do so. (05-29-2014)
State v. CuevasEvidence: The admission of evidence, while denied for one purpose, may be admitted for an unrelated purpose, so long as it remains within the purpose or scope of what is being examined. When determining a sentence, courts are to use the “shift-to-I” rule; however, the courts failure to do so may not necessarily be a reversible error. (05-21-2014)
State v. KennyCriminal Law: Under ORS 133.076(1), the phrase "issued under" merely describes the type of citation created and does not create an additional element of the offense; in establishing "knowingly" under the same statute, "logically relevant" testimony under OEC 401 is permitted, including testimony of a defendant.(05-14-2014)