Willamette Law Online

(21 summaries)

Elijah Brown

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
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)