Willamette Law Online

(17 summaries)

Stephanie Harmon

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Dept. of Human Services v. D. J.Juvenile Law: ORS 419B.875(2) provides in part that the rights of the parties include, but are not limited to the right to call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses and participate in hearings. A party’s right to participate includes the right to testify on the party’s own behalf.(11-27-2013)
In re PhinneyProfessional Responsibility: Disbarment is an appropriate sanction when a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct and when a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice. (10-03-2013)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. NewcombCriminal Procedure: Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution governing privacy rights with respect to personal effects, extraction and testing of a dog's blood is a "search" because those actions constitute a physical invasion of a defendant's personal property which reveal otherwise concealed evidence. (04-16-2014)
State v. PoitraCriminal Law: The state of mind of an arresting officer is not relevant to a self-defense analysis and risks confusing the jury, which instead must evaluate the defendant's reasonable belief as to the circumstances.(03-26-2014)
State v. FergusonCriminal Procedure: For purposes of ORS 135.703 and ORS 135.705, the ‘person injured’ who must participate in a valid civil compromise is the person or persons directly injured by the acts criminalized by the statute under which a defendant is charged. (03-05-2014)
State v. BrewerSentencing: In order to justify the imposition of a downward departure sentence, ORS 137.712(2)(d)(B) requires a defendant to prove that representation of being armed with a dangerous weapon did not reasonably put the victim in fear of imminent significant physical injury. (01-23-2014)
State v. WierCriminal Procedure: Generally, a party is entitled to have a proposed jury instruction given if the instruction properly states the law applicable. However, a trial court does not err in declining to give a correct instruction that is fully covered by the trial courts other instructions.(12-26-2013)
Dept. of Human Services v. G.L.H.Juvenile Law: ORS 419B.476(2)(a) requires that the juvenile court determine whether DHS has made reasonable efforts and whether the parent has made sufficient progress to make it possible for the ward to return safely home. (12-18-2013)
Cascade v. Georgia-PacificProperty Law: The interpretation of an express easement is a question of law to be decided by the courts. In construing an easement, a court's task is to discern the nature and scope of the easement's purpose and to give effect to that purpose in a practical manner. (11-14-2013)
State v. KingCriminal Procedure: In issuing a warrant, the magistrate could reasonably conclude that the totality of the facts set out in the affidavit, separate from the informant's allegations, sufficiently corroborated the anonymous informant's statements. (10-23-2013)
Epler and EplerFamily Law: Once a court's child-custody determination has been memorialized in a dissolution judgment, the presumption in ORS 109.119 that the legal parent acts in the best interest of the child would have no effect in any subsequent modifications under ORS 107.135 which requires there to be a substantial change in circumstances before a court can consider whether to modify custody. (09-11-2013)
State v. BaileyCriminal Procedure: Discovery of an outstanding warrant for a defendant's arrest purges the taint of prior unlawful police conduct that might otherwise require suppression of evidence obtained as a result of an arrest on the warrant. (08-14-2013)
State v. BrandSentencing: Under OAR 213-012-0040(2), the court is required to impose concurrent sanctions when the Defendant has committed a single probation violation.(07-24-2013)
State v. MayEvidence: In assessing sufficiency of evidence, a trier of fact may draw a conclusion when there is a reasonable probability that the conclusion flows from the proven facts.(07-03-2013)
Rivers v. SAIFWorkers Compensation: The wage earning agreement between a worker and his or her employer may be a general agreement reflecting the payment aspect of the parties employment relationship, even if that agreement contemplates that the employee will be assigned to various jobs that will involve differing pay rates and hours. (05-30-2013)
State v. HaneyCriminal Law: Under ORS 161.067(2), two owners, are treated as a single owner, for the purposes of determining the number of separately punishable offenses, when they own joint interests in a vehicle. (05-08-2013)
State v. HooperCriminal Procedure: A trial court's statement to counsel that there is, "no issue here as to venue," in the presence of the jury is not an abuse of discretion where the jury is otherwise instructed that venue is a material element.(04-17-2013)