Willamette Law Online

(16 summaries)

Robert Goeller

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Milne v. RosenblumBallot Titles: A measure's subject is reasonably identified if it states or describes the subject accurately and in terms that will not confuse or mislead potential petition signers and voters.(02-13-2014)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Sellwood-Moreland Improv. League v. City of PortlandLand Use: Unless the Plan District’s code expressly precludes density transfers between sites in multi-dwelling zones, the density transfer will be allowed to preserve development opportunities for new housing and to reduce development pressure on environmentally sensitive sites.(04-02-2014)
State v. BerryCriminal Procedure: To raise a timely double jeopardy claim, the defendant must raise the claim before the second trials starts if all of the facts that are required to prove double jeopardy are well-known.(03-26-2014)
State v. DanielsCriminal Procedure: A prosecutor can obtain recordings of inmate conversations from the Department of Corrections for discovery and must disclose the recordings to the defendant if the recordings are in the prosecutor's possession or control.(03-05-2014)
Root v. Klamath CountyLand Use: To reverse a LUBA decision, the evidence must be so at odds with LUBA's evaluation that it is reasonable to infer that LUBA either misunderstood or misapplied its scope of review.(01-23-2014)
State v. SillsCriminal Procedure: Under the former fugitive doctrine, an appellate court has judicial authority to dismiss an appeal if a fugitive's escape significantly interfered with the appellate process. (12-26-2013)
Cejas Commercial Interiors, Inc. v. Torres-LizamaEmployment Law: The economic-realities test is the appropriate test to determine whether an entity has functional control over a worker, even if formal control is absent.(12-18-2013)
State v. GillsonAppellate Procedure: To preserve an argument, the party must explain the objection to the trial court specific enough to ensure that the court can identify an alleged error, consider the error, and correct the error if warranted. (11-20-2013)
State v. BeltranCriminal Procedure: A motion for consolidation is untimely when the motion is not filed until the same day of the trial, and the defendant is not given the opportunity to make a calculated response. (10-09-2013)
State v. FessendenCriminal Procedure: A police officer, who has an objectively reasonable belief that an animal has suffered, or will imminently suffer a serious physical injury or death, is justified in conducting a search or seizure without a warrant to provide immediate aid or assistance. (09-25-2013)
State v. A.D.S.Civil Commitment: A mental commitment order cannot be based on speculation that a person cannot care for their own personal needs, and that a person's needs can be met through their own resources or through the help of another.(08-14-2013)
T. S. R. v. J. B. C.Family Law: Oregon's statutory policies consider a child's best interests with great weight when trying to promote relationships between a child and a noncustodial parent.(07-31-2013)
Krisor v. Lake County Fair BoardEmployment Law: A court may apply a transactional approach to determine claim preclusion and separate related claims when they are not connected by the same factual transaction.(04-17-2013)

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc.Patents: PATENTS: PERMANENT INJUNCTION: The detrimental effect of restricting innovation combined with the public’s general interest in protecting inventive technology property outweighs any public interest in purchasing cheaper products from an infringing party.(06-30-2014)
Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. Patents: Patent Infringement: The obviousness-type double patenting doctrine prohibits a patent owner from extending their exclusive use right through a later-expiring patent that is not patentably distinct from the earlier-expiring patent.(04-22-2014)
Dardenne v. MoveOn.org Civil ActionTrademarks: When a private group used a State's registered service mark to criticize the Governor of the State, the Court determined that the use of the mark would not confuse viewers as to the owner of the mark.(04-07-2014)