Willamette Law Online

(36 summaries)

Sarah De La Cruz

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Elk Creek Management Co. v. GilbertLandlord Tenant: ORS 90.385 requires the tenant to prove that the landlord would not have taken the prohibited action but for the tenant’s protected activity, but does not require that the landlord intend to injure the tenant in response to the tenant injuring the landlord. (05-31-2013)
State v. HaynesAppellate Procedure: In order to preserve an issue for appeal with a single word or phrase, it must be used in a context that allows the court and the other parties to understand that it refers to a particular legal or factual argument and the essential contours around the full argument.(08-16-2012)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. RiveraSentencing: Court remands for resentencing in the absence of factual findings on proportionality of a Measure 11 sentence as required by State v. Rodriguez/Buck.(03-26-2014)
Utility Reform Project v. PUCAdministrative Law: The PUC is not required to order a return of overpayment of taxes to ratepayers where the utility did not earn a reasonable return on investment.(02-26-2014)
State v. OhottoEvidence: Testimony on the rate of dissipation of alcohol in the blood is improper lay opinion where the deputy testifying merely read training manuals on alcohol dissipation, took a training course, and conducted routine DUII investigations. (02-12-2014)
Dizick v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison SupervisionParole and Post-Prison Supervision: The Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision does not have authority to correct sentencing errors, so it also cannot decide the presumptive sentence.(12-26-2013)
Back in Action v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.Workers Compensation:  Both the temporary, OAR 436-009-0040 (07/07/08), and permanent, OAR 436-009-0040(1), rules permit the enforcement of fee discount contracts because they only set an upper limit on fees for medical services. (12-11-2013)
State v. Lykins Sentencing: A person who suffers physical and mental harm, is manipulated, and whose short-term and long-term vulnerability to harm is increased meets the definition of a “vulnerable victim” under OAR 213-008-0002(1)(b)(B).(11-20-2013)
State v. JacksonCriminal Law: Where a stalking charge is based purely on communication, the State must prove that the communication was an unequivocal threat.(10-30-2013)
State v. HuttonEvidence: Evidence of prior bad acts can only be used to prove intent under OEC 404(3) where the defendant admits committing the actus reus or the judge instructs the jury that it must first find the defendant committed the actus reus before using prior bad acts to determine intent(10-09-2013)
Riemer v. PERBAdministrative Law: Before qualifying for PERS retirement, an individual must first be considered an "employee". (09-25-2013)
Atkeson v. T & K Lands, LLCProperty Law: It is not inequitable to impute an attorney’s knowledge to the client where the attorney is hired to perform due diligence in a real estate transaction.(08-28-2013)
State v. FaubionCriminal Procedure: An officer is permitted to verify the accuracy of information obtained during a stop, even when there is a lawful explanation of the behavior.(08-14-2013)
State v. BriggsCriminal Procedure: Consent to entry occurs where the officer presents an alternative to allowing the officer enter.(07-31-2013)
Lehman v. BielenbergCivil Procedure: Failure to file responsive pleadings does not entitle the opposing party to a default judgment unless the opposing party complies with the requirements of ORCP 69. (07-10-2013)
Kalfas v. AdamsProperty Law: When an express easement is clear and unambiguous, the court should not look to the surrounding circumstances to determine its meaning. (06-19-2013)
PacifiCorp v. SimplexGrinnellAttorney Fees: ORS 20.096 does not create a reciprocal right to recover attorney fees when an indemnification agreement in the contract does not allow one party to recover attorney fees from the other.(05-15-2013)
SAIF Corp. v. SatterfieldWorkers Compensation: A report issued a year after injury indicating increased functioning is new information under OAR 436-120-0350.(03-27-2013)
RJ Enterprises LLC of Oregon v. DCBSWorkers Compensation: A person subject to the employer’s direction, control, and who provides services for remuneration is a subject worker within the meaning of workers' compensation law.(02-27-2013)
Gearhart v. Public Utilities Commission of OregonAdministrative Law: Unless a court gives direction to the contrary, an agency has discretion to act within its authority, as granted by the legislature.(02-06-2013)
Three Rivers Education Association v. Three Rivers School DistrictAdministrative Law: An order fails substantial reason if finding no causal connection between two decisions while also finding one decision to be the impact of the other.(01-16-2013)
Pfizer Inc. v. Oregon Dept. of JusticeTrade Secrets: Information is a trade secret and exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law when there is evidence that it gains its value from not being generally known, and is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.(12-19-2012)
Sea River Properties, LLC. v. ParksProperty Law: Land formed by accretion does not belong to the owner in possession of the property when the land forms on top of property already owned by another.(12-05-2012)
Macnab v. StateCivil Procedure: Under ORS 30.275(9), the two year statute of limitations on a claim of false imprisonment begins to run from the date when the plaintiff is aware of the facts necessary to prove liability.(11-15-2012)
State v. JohnsonCriminal Procedure: When the original trial is brought within a reasonable period of time, ORS 135.747 does not regulate the timing of the second trial in the same criminal proceeding.(11-07-2012)
Ivers v. SalladayCivil Procedure: ORCP 68 does not apply when there is not a substantive right to recover attorney fees. It would be contrary to the structure and purpose of UTMA to apply ORCP 68.(10-24-2012)
Purdy v. Deere and Co.Tort Law: When a jury is presented with compound questions that address both the standard of care and causation, the appellant must establish that the jury did not decide the case on causation.(10-10-2012)
Bertsch v. DLCDLand Use: In order to obtain just compensation allowed by Measure 49, the property owner must show, more likely than not, the conditions in place were actually satisfied during the time when the county could have authorized a dwelling. A party is not allowed to currently attempt to satisfy historical conditions.(09-19-2012)
Pincetich v. NolanContract Law: ORS 701.131(2)(c) applies to construction defects and services contributing to the defects, and does not include the failure to make payments on work performed.(08-29-2012)
State v. CanfieldCriminal Law: A seizure occurs when “the officer has manifested a show of authority restricting an individual's freedom of movement.” When an individual’s freedom of movement is no longer interfered with, the stop has ended.(08-01-2012)
Poppa v. LairdAppellate Procedure: The appellant is required to provide the appellate court with a sufficient appellate record to decide the issues on appeal. The appellate court will not decide issues that were not preserved as an error in the court below.(07-11-2012)
Legacy Health Systems v. NobleWorkers Compensation: An injury arises out of employment when the risk is connected with the nature of the work or the work environment.(06-27-2012)
U.S. Market #109 v. OLCCAdministrative Law: When the OLCC places a restriction on the liquor license requiring the Licensee to install age verification equipment and train the employees to use it, the Licensee must require its employees to use the equipment in appropriate circumstances.(06-06-2012)
Gay and GayFamily Law: It is legally permissible and within the trial court's discretion to decide to not distribute shares to one spouse in a closely held corporation in exchange for an equalizing judgment.(05-16-2012)
State v. BennettCriminal Procedure: In imposing an upward departure sentence, a court may consider the defendant’s conduct after the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced.(04-18-2012)
State v. TruongCriminal Procedure: When a defendant is sentenced to serve consecutive prison sentences, the total prison term cannot exceed 400 percent of the maximum for the primary offense in the case.(03-28-2012)