Willamette Law Online

(23 summaries)

Christene Cencer

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. BaileyCriminal Procedure: The per se rule of State v. Dempster that “the discovery and execution of a valid arrest warrant necessarily attenuate the taint of preceding unlawful police conduct,” specifically with evidence found upon search incident to said arrest, is overturned in light of Brown v. Illinois' factor test. Officers still may lawfully arrest and then search a defendant. (11-06-2014)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Dept. of Human Services v. T.S.Family Law: To determine whether Department of Human Services (DHS) established reasonable efforts to reunify both the mother and the father, the efforts should be viewed through the totality of the case. DHS needs to endeavor to reunify both parents, even if it appears that only one will eventually be reunified. (11-26-2014)
State v. K.M.Civil Commitment: It is not sufficient for a client to be informed by their attorney as to the possible outcomes of a hearing to determine mental illness and possible involuntary confinement. The trial judge must advise the alleged mentally ill person of their rights pursuant to ORS 426.100.(11-19-2014)
State v. MeekCriminal Law: A letter, as a form of “written communication” is not considered an “object” under ORS 163.750(1)(c).(10-29-2014)
Dept. of Human Services v. M.H.Juvenile Law: Under ORS 419B.500 and ORS 419.498(3), a termination of parental rights petition will be based upon the most recent permanency plan determination since it is based on the current circumstances of the child.(10-15-2014)
State v. CoffmanCriminal Procedure: Warrantless entrance onto residential curtilage is likely a trespass, unless the resident has given implied or express consent. When determining implied consent to enter the curtilage of a home that consists of multiple units, the Court looks at the physical layout of the units and the residents' use of the area to see whether an objective member of the public would understand that there is an implied consent to enter. (10-08-2014)
Shell v. Schollander Companies, Inc.Tort Law: This Court previously concluded that ORS 12.135 “applies to any action, 'in contract, tort, or otherwise,' regardless of the type of damages sought, so long as the action arises out of the specified construction-related circumstances.” The Court further concludes that these claims need to arise out of a construction contract. (09-24-2014)
State v. BakerCriminal Procedure: It is important to consider “whether all elements of one offense are subsumed within the elements of the other offense” when determining whether two counts should merge as one. While “underlying factual circumstances of the crime” might seemingly overlap to a degree, the statutory duplication of all elements are what analysis hinges on.(09-17-2014)
State v. CarlonCriminal Procedure: To avoid error, trial courts should ensure that when answering a jury's question, further instructions are applicable to the charges at hand and not further focusing the jury on irrelevant issues. (09-10-2014)
State v. DuvallCriminal Procedure: Trial court that assumes the jury has an understanding of a legal definition and then fails to give that definition to the jury risks having the trial remanded. (09-04-2014)
State v. DavisCivil Procedure: Under Article I, Section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, a defendant has the right for a jury to find all elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Issue preclusion, therefore, cannot be used to definitively establish essential facts to obtain a conviction because it hinders a jury's duty to deliberate and find every element of a crime.(08-27-2014)
State v. MooreCriminal Procedure: Under ORS 136.432.1, a court cannot suppress relevant evidence, even if obtained in violation of statutory provision, unless there is an exception under the United States Constitution or the Oregon Constitution; the rules of evidence governing privileges and the admission of hearsay; or, the rights of the press.(08-20-2014)
State v. Hamel-SpencerCriminal Procedure: Defendant has the burden to prove that multiple offenses are the result of a single criminal episode and that the first prosecutor is aware of the multiple offenses to demonstrate double jeopardy. (08-13-2014)
State v. SmithCriminal Procedure: Under ORS 161.370, trial courts have the authority to commit defendants to hospitals for treatment designed to restore their competence to stand trial. (07-23-2014)
US Bank, NA v. EckertProperty Law: Under former ORS 86.735, the appointment of a successor trustee to a deed of trust needs to be recorded with the county where the relevant property is located.(07-09-2014)
State v. RoseCriminal Procedure: Under ORS 136.583, a search warrant issued in Oregon can be executed in another state so long as the criminal matter is triable in Oregon and “exercise of jurisdiction over the recipient is not inconsistent with the Oregon Constitution or Constitution of the United States.”(07-02-2014)
State v. FernaaysSentencing: Where remand of a sentencing hearing would not materially promote the “ends of justice” the Court of Appeals has the ability to decline to exercise its discretion to remedy the statutory error. (06-11-2014)
State v. SinesCriminal Procedure: When the state is sufficiently involved in a search or seizure conducted by a private party, state constitutional protection is triggered.(06-04-2014)
Schmidt v. SladerTort Law: Direct causation, rather than reasonable foreseeability, is the sine qua non of respondeat superior liability. Evidence regarding acts that are the outgrowth of and within the scope of employment ought to be obtained and presented to the court. (05-29-2014)
Rowlett v. FaganCivil Procedure: A properly stated negligence claim cannot be dismissed on the merits after an answer has already been filed before trial.(05-14-2014)
State v. DalessioCriminal Procedure: Under State v. Moore/Coen, a defendant's trial testimony is considered tainted by the erroneous admission of unconstitutionally-obtained statements even if Defendant did not move to exclude his pretrial statement during his first trial.(04-30-2014)
State v. BistrikaEvidence: Evidence of independent crimes that threaten the safety of police officers do not need to be suppressed even if evidence is obtained as a result of unlawful police conduct.(04-23-2014)
State v. DurandoCriminal Procedure: If conviction would have occurred despite the evidence in question being suppressed then it is considered a harmless error; however, unlawfully obtained evidence that is the sole evidence leading to a conviction will be suppressed.(04-16-2014)