(23 summaries)
Emily Crocker
Oregon Supreme Court
| Title | Excerpt | Filling Date |
|---|---|---|
| Ann Sacks Tile and Stone, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. | Civil Procedure: Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over the case because taxpayers filed a notice of appeal using electronic service, which was contrary to ORCP 9 G. | (09-20-2012) |
Oregon Court of Appeals
| Title | Excerpt | Filling Date |
|---|---|---|
| Davenport v. Premo | Standing: An appeal is moot when an inmate seeks habeas corpus relief, is subsequently transferred to a correctional facility out of state, and cannot demonstrate that the appeal would have a practical effect on his rights. | (05-01-2013) |
| State v. Petterson | Criminal Procedure: After the appearance of new information which vitiates probable cause, an investigation must cease. | (04-24-2013) |
| Hamilton . SAIF Corportaion | Workers Compensation: An employer's requirement that an employee stand on a hard floor does not significantly increase the risk of injury, and, therefore, by itself, cannot prove a causal nexus between employment conditions and injuries resulting from falling down. | (04-17-2013) |
| State v. Pinckney | Criminal Law: "Use" under ORS 166.220(1)(a) includes both physical force and the threat of physical force, and a trial court does not err when it rejects a proposed jury instruction that states that "use" includes only actual force. | (03-27-2013) |
| Saldana-Ramirez v. State of Oregon | Criminal Procedure: Defendant's Padilla-based post-conviction claim could not stand because Padilla was decided after he was convicted, and it does not apply retroactively. | (03-13-2013) |
| State v. Stookey | Criminal Procedure: Violating ORS 815.020(1)(a) requires a vehicle to be so sufficiently unsafe that its occupants face a danger of probable harm or loss. A horizontal crack in defendant's windshield did not "endanger any person" under ORS 815.020 and therefore the officer's objective belief was not reasonable. | (02-27-2013) |
| Deberry v. Summers | Civil Procedure: Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-attorney after he filed a motion under ORCP 47 E because the witness plaintiff planned to call had no personal knowledge of the events; therefore no genuine issue of material fact existed, and summary judgment was proper. | (02-06-2013) |
| Tran v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners | Administrative Law: ORS 684.100 authorizes the Board of Chiropractic Examiners to (1) discipline individuals practicing chiropractic without a license, and (2) impose up to $10,000 in civil penalties per violation. | (01-16-2013) |
| 3P Delivery, Inc. v. Employment Dept. Tax Section | Tax Law: A lease-leaseback arrangement does not constitute furnishable title to qualify for a tax exemption under ORS 657.047(1)(b). | (12-19-2012) |
| State v. Febuary | Evidence: Testimony of a prior incident of sexual abuse must carry a sufficient concurrence of common features for it to be admissible as noncharacter evidence under OEC 404. | (12-05-2012) |
| State v. Hudson | Criminal Procedure: Trial court properly denied a motion to suppress when Defendant was properly seized, police entered the house under exigent circumstances, police properly read Defendant his Miranda warnings, and asked only clarifying questions after Defendant equivocally invoked his right to counsel. | (11-07-2012) |
| State v. Davis | Criminal Law: A jury instruction is erroneous when defining recklessness in criminal mischief as relating to a particular circumstance rather than only to the resulting damage. | (10-17-2012) |
| Pereida-Alba v. Coursey | Post-Conviction Relief: Defense counsel's failure to request a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense is demonstrative of a lack of professional skill and is prejudicial to the client. | (08-29-2012) |
| Berry and Huffman | Attorney Fees: ORS 107.104 does not entitle a prevailing party to recover attorney fees in absence of independent statutory authority authorizing the recovery of such fees. | (08-15-2012) |
| State v. Moats | Constitutional Law: A seizure does not occur under Article I section 9 of the Oregon Constitution when officers do not demonstrate authority over a defendant prior to discovering drugs in the vehicle. | (08-08-2012) |
| Dawson v. Employment Dept. | Employment Law: Employment benefits were rightfully denied when claimant was wantonly negligent, indifferent to consequences, and should have been aware that his decision to drive under the influence of intoxicants would violate an employer's expectations of an employee. | (07-25-2012) |
| State v. Gonzales-Sanchez | Criminal Procedure: A six-year delay in prosecuting a DUII charge did not violate the defendant's right to a speedy trial because the delay was primarily caused by the defendant by failing to fulfill his obligations under the diversion agreement he entered into with the court. | (07-11-2012) |
| State v. Mast | Constitutional Law: Under Article I, section 9, a private office constitutes a protected privacy interest which requires a warrant in order to search. The administrative search exception does not give an officer the authority to "forcibly enter" said private office or premises. | (06-27-2012) |
| Smith v. Board of Parole | Administrative Law: A notice-of-rights form constitutes a rule under ORS 183.310(9) requiring compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act when it details practices and procedures that are generally applicable to all hearings. | (06-06-2012) |
| Crothers v. Employment Dept. | Employment Law: Unavailability to work during avocation hours will not disqualify a recipient of unemployment benefits so long as the unavailability does not interfere with regular hours of primary employment. | (05-16-2012) |
| Page v. Parsons | Civil Procedure: A trial court is not required to provide multiple hearings on a special motion to strike under ORS 31.150, as this would be contrary to legislative intent to curtail the litigation process. A trial court may also grant a special motion to strike after a non-specific discovery request from the plaintiff. | (04-25-2012) |
| State v. Nolasco-Lara | Criminal Law: The Court may choose not to exercise its discretion regarding sentences that meet the test for plain error if the Defendant encouraged the trial judge to impose a sentence and strategically chose not to object to the sentence. | (03-28-2012) |