Willamette Law Online

(29 summaries)

Adam Daheim

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
CenturyTel, Inc. v. Dept. of RevenueTax Law: The Court will uphold an administrative rule defining a statutory term where the definition is consistent with the term as defined by the statute.(03-07-2013)
Crystal Communications, Inc. v. Dept. of RevenueTax Law: The gain attributed to a public utilities' sale of assets in a liquidation may reasonably be determined by the Department of Revenue as apportionable "business income" consistent with the term's statutory definition found in ORS 314.610(1).(03-07-2013)
Doe v. Corp. of Presiding BishopConstitutional Law: Article I, section 10 of the Oregon Constitution places it within the discretion of the trial court to vacate its own protective orders as well as to may release redacted copies of exhibits to the public.(06-14-2012)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. PinardAppellate Procedure: Where the defendant does not raise a merger argument at the trial court, he must establish plain error that is apparent on the record and it must be such that the "legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute."(02-27-2013)
State v. CamCriminal Law: Posting signs identifying one’s property as “private” is insufficient in manifesting a clear intent to exclude casual visitors and therefore evidence obtained from police observations may be admitted.(02-06-2013)
State v. MarshallCriminal Procedure: Voluntary consent to a search will not be found where a reasonable person would believe that a promise of immunity from prosecution would result from their consent.(01-09-2013)
State v. OidorCopyright: Federal law, section 301 of the Copyright Act, preempts ORS 164.865(1)(b) because the Federal Act grants exclusive rights to copyright owners while Oregon law grants a similar right to copyright holders.(12-12-2012)
SAIF v. RamosWorkers Compensation: The Worker’s Compensation Board (board) is permitted to rely on a medical arbiter’s examination, even where such examination had been cancelled by the Appellate Review Unit; and render a claimant’s condition as “medically stationary” so long as the subsequent treatments are solely to improve claimant’s functional abilities.(09-26-2012)
Allen v. PremoAppellate Procedure: Where the Court of Appeals issues a decision of remand, the lower court shall act as if the original proceedings did not occur and a new trial has been ordered.(08-15-2012)
State v. PatrickTraffic Infractions: Under ORS 811.111(1)(d) a person commits the offense of violating the speed limit if, while driving on a highway in any city, the person either: (1) exceeds the designated speed, or; (2) exceeds the specific speeds listed in ORS 811.111(1)(d)(A) to (F). Also, it was within the authority of the municipal court to adopt its own base fine schedule for violations in its jurisdiction.(08-01-2012)
Agrons v. StrongCivil Procedure: The trial court may permit a Plaintiff to amend his complaint under ORCP 23 B if the trial court in its determination decides that the presentation of the merits of the action will not be subserved by the amendment, nor will the admission of such evidence prejudice the adverse party in maintaining an action or defense on the merits.(06-27-2012)
Dept. of Human Services v. S. A.Juvenile Law: Under ORS 419B.476(5), a juvenile court is required to make a permanency plan determination after a permanency hearing, even where the hearing is combined with a guardianship hearing.(06-27-2012)
Blunier v. StaggsAttorney Fees: Attorney fees that are reasonably incurred while enforcing the terms of a trust deed are considered an expense of the trust.(05-31-2012)
State v. HuttonEvidence: Evidence of prior misconduct is admissible to show intent even where it is not a contested issue so long as mens rea is an element to a crime charged.(05-16-2012)
Oregon Shores v. Board of County CommissionersLand Use: In determining whether a landowner has a common law vested right to continue in developing his land, the court will use the “expenditure ratio” as a necessary starting point in evaluating whether the land owner has incurred substantial enough costs toward completion of the project.(05-02-2012)
Bock and BockFamily Law: A 4% increase in income does not constitute an unanticipated or substantial change in economic circumstances that would justify a modification of a child support order.(04-04-2012)
Capitol Specialty Ins. Co. v. Chan & Lui, Inc.Insurance Law: Amendments to policy coverage amounts do not apply retroactively where the "effective date of change" is clearly and unambiguously stated within the policy.(03-14-2012)
Brumage v. Esco Corp.Workers Compensation: Claims for hearing loss are evaluated upon claimant’s “overall hearing loss” at the time claimant files his claim.(02-29-2012)
State v. LeinoCriminal Procedure: A records and warrant check by a police officer during a lawful traffic stop does not unlawfully extend or expand the scope of the traffic stop in violation of Art. I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.(02-15-2012)
Cocchiara v. Lithia Motors, Inc.Employment Law: The status of “at will” employment does not change despite offers of alternative employment by the employer to accommodate employees with disabilities.(12-29-2011)
Westfall v. Oregon Dept. of CorrectionsTort Law: The State is not immune from tort liability under ORS 30.265(3)(c) if the employee action that caused the tort was the result of the employee merely implementing routine policy decisions in the course of everyday activities.(12-29-2011)
Dept. Human Services v. B.L.J.Family Law: To justify juvenile court jurisdiction over a child the Department of Human Services must prove that, under the totality of the circumstances, there exists a reasonable likelihood of harm to the child’s welfare. Additionally, there is no legal requirement that parents be able to care for their children independently of another.(12-07-2011)
State v. EarlsSentencing: For the purpose of applying the presumptive 13-month sentence under ORS 137.717(b) a conviction in a court-martial does not apply. Where the Court of Appeal finds plain error in the trial court’s failure to merge guilty verdicts on particular counts, the Court will exercise its discretion to correct the error.(11-16-2011)
Oregon Corrections Employees v. State of OregonEmployment Law: Where a collective bargaining agreement authorizes an employer to take certain actions, such actions if unilaterally employed by the employer, do not constitute unfair labor practices.(11-09-2011)
Tieu v. MorganProperty Law: Summary judgment of adverse possession will be granted where a claimant can prove, with clear and convincing evidence, that he, through “honest belief” of actual ownership, continuously maintained actual, open, notorious, exclusive and hostile possession of the property for greater than ten years.(11-02-2011)
State v. JonesCriminal Law: Multiple convictions for reckless endangerment will not be merged when a court finds that more than one person was within the zone of danger at the time of the offense.(10-26-2011)
State v. KellerCriminal Law: Contempt for willful disobedience of a court order will be established when the defendant was aware of such an order, and neither complied, nor sought modification, of the order.(10-19-2011)
State v. WashingtonConstitutional Law: Prosecutorial discretion violates the Oregon Constitution when such decisions are made without coherent systematic policy or criteria, or when there exists a lack of consistent enforcement.(10-05-2011)
State v. MullinsCriminal Procedure: The 30 days that a defendant has to file a notice of appeal from a supplemental judgment begins when the defendant receives notice that the judgment has been entered, not when appellate counsel receives notice.(09-21-2011)