Willamette Law Online

(11 summaries)

Cole Burgess

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. MusserCriminal Procedure: Evidence obtained from a voluntary consent search must be suppressed when the prior police conduct is unlawful.(08-28-2014)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. SullivanCriminal Law: Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, a warrantless home entry by police is not lawful unless there is an exigent circumstance making the entry necessary; and, for the entry to be lawful, the State must be able to make some showing of the feasibility of obtaining a warrant.(08-20-2014)
Bova v. City of MedfordAttorney Fees: The Court has no reason to reverse an award of attorney fees from invalid supplemental judgments; and, the “substantial benefit” doctrine is not applicable unless an important constitutional right applying to all citizens is asserted.(08-13-2014)
Dept. of Human Services v. A.B.Juvenile Law: In a juvenile case to determine a parent’s jurisdiction of children, a single positive urinalysis taken prior to the trial is not sufficient to establish a substance abuse issue when accompanied by other negative urinalysis taken at the time of the trial.(07-23-2014)
Heller v. BNSF Railway CompanyTort Law: To maintain a claim under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act, the plaintiff must show that they knew or had reason to know of the injury within three-years of bringing the claim and must have sufficient facts to show that the injury was caused by work related activities.(07-16-2014)
State v. BellCriminal Law: The state can extend a defendant's probation sentence for failure to make payments conditional to the probation, regardless of the reason for the failure to pay.(07-09-2014)
Dept. of Human Services v. E. M.Juvenile Law: Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), to obtain exclusive jurisdiction of a child in juvenile court, a nexus between a current risk causing circumstance and risk of harm to the child must be established.(07-02-2014)
State v. PierceCriminal Procedure: If a judge does not have personal knowledge of the matter in controversy then the judge does not violate the “neutral and detached” requirement of Oregon and federal law when granting search warrants.(06-11-2014)
State v. OlsonEvidence: Under OEC 404(3), a court considers six factors to determine whether evidence of prior acts may be admitted to demonstrate intent in a criminal trial.(05-29-2014)
Vanecek v. AngelozziPost-Conviction Relief: The petitioner has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the trial counsel failed to provide adequate representation by exercising professional skill and judgment and that the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result.(05-21-2014)
State v. CorkillCriminal Law: A court does not have a duty to sua sponte exclude testimony where the questioning leading to this testimony did not present "vouching" concerns.(04-30-2014)