Willamette Law Online

(30 summaries)

Jennifer Jefferies

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.Tax Law: Under ORS 314.665(6)(a), the term intangible assets does not mean only “liquid assets,” and instead carries its ordinary legal meaning. The receipts from the sale of intangible assets that are not derived from a taxpayer’s primary business activity must be excluded from the sales factor under ORS 314.665(6)(a).(12-12-2013)
PGE v. Ebasco Services, Inc. Civil Procedure: A default judgment awarding monetary relief where the underlying complaint did not state the specific amount of money or damages sought violates ORCP 67 C. Such a defect does not render the default judgment void and subject to collateral attack, but instead renders the judgment voidable and not subject to collateral attack. (07-25-2013)
M.K.F. v. MiramontesCivil Procedure: Under ORS 30.866, if a plaintiff seeks both an injunctive order and a judgment for compensatory money damages, the parties are entitled to a jury trial on the claim for money damages.(09-20-2012)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Rogue Valley Sewer Services v. City of PhoenixMunicipal Law: Where a city's charter broadly confers all authority not denied by state or federal law, it confers on the city the power to impose local taxes and to regulate matters subject to municipal regulation. (04-09-2014)
Dept of Human Services v. A.E.F.Juvenile Law: Juvenile statutes authorize a court to order a parent to participate in a psychological evaluation if the evaluation bears a rational relationship to the bases the court found for taking jurisdiction over the child. (02-26-2014)
Green v. FrankePost-Conviction Relief: To be entitled to post-conviction relief on the basis of inadequate assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts demonstrating that trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that petitioner suffered prejudice as a result. The Oregon Constitution does not give a criminal defendant the right to a perfect defense, but it requires that the lawyer do those things reasonably necessary to diligently and conscientiously advance the defense. (02-12-2014)
State v. WieboldtCriminal Procedure: Advising a defendant of the lawful consequences that may flow from his or her decision to engage in a certain behavior ensures that the defendant makes an informed choice whether to engage in that behavior or not. Thus, a statement of the lawful consequences of refusal to submit to breath, blood, or urine tests is not unconstitutionally coercive. (01-23-2014)
State v. BadilloCriminal Law: The Criminal Law Revision Commission intended ORS 161.485(2) to prevent multiple convictions for attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy on the basis of a defendant's single course of conduct, as opposed to preventing multiple convictions for multiple instances of one or another of the inchoate crimes. (12-26-2013)
Oregon v. AlarconCriminal Procedure: A judgment for conviction notwithstanding an erroneous admission of evidence will be affirmed if there is little likelihood that the admission of the evidence affected the verdict. The court will consider the nature of the erroneously admitted evidence in the context of other evidence on the same issue. (11-20-2013)
State v. SteltzCriminal Procedure: Under ORS 161.067(1), when the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an element that the others do not, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are separate statutory violations.(10-30-2013)
State v. SmithCriminal Procedure: To prove that a defendant "hindered" a report under ORS 165.572, the state must establish that the defendant's actions made it slow or difficult for another person to make a report. That requires proof of some discernible interruption or delay in the making of a report above the de minimis level.(10-16-2013)
Perez v. PerssonCriminal Procedure: ORS 137.123(1) provides that a sentence imposed by the court may be made concurrent or consecutive to any other sentence, subject to various specific limitations. There is nothing in the language of that statute that limits the court in the exercise of its discretion from imposing partially consecutive sentences and concurrent sentences. (10-02-2013)
Kennedy v. WheelerCivil Procedure: When there is a twelve-person jury, the same nine or more jurors must agree on every interdependent element of a particular claim against a particular defendant.(08-28-2013)
State v. HuffmanCriminal Law: Reasonable suspicion must be evaluated based on the information that is available to the officer under the circumstances in which the decision must be made. Reasonable suspicion does not require that the facts as observed by the officer conclusively indicate illegal activity, only that those facts support the reasonable inference of illegal activity by that person. (08-14-2013)
Waid and WaidFamily Law: Under ORS 107.135(4), a court must consider whether change in circumstances justifies reconsidering a spousal support award. (07-10-2013)
Afzal v. PERBDisability Law: Under ORS 238.320(1), to establish eligibility for a disability retirement allowance, a claimant must be mentally or physically incapacitated for an extended duration and thereby unable to perform any work for which qualified.(06-05-2013)
Dept. of Human Services v. A. R. S.Juvenile Law: A juvenile court may not continue wardship over a child or change the permanency plan for the child from reunification to adoption based on conditions or circumstances that are not explicitly stated or fairly implied by the jurisdictional judgment. (05-15-2013)
Tracy v. NoothAppellate Procedure: A court may allow reconsideration to clarify its disposition.(02-27-2013)
Cron v. ZimmerContract Law: An agreement is not fully integrated, and the parol evidence rule does not bar evidence of prior oral agreements, if the prior oral agreement is consistent with the subsequent writing and the prior oral agreement is the kind of agreement that would naturally be made separately from the writing.(02-06-2013)
Dept. of Human Services v. G.J.R.Juvenile Law: A juvenile court has jurisdiction in a case on an additional allegation if there is sufficient evidence, from which a reasonable fact-finder could conclude by a preponderance of the evidence, either that a current risk of harm to the child exists from the additional allegation standing alone, or that the additional allegation contributes to or enhances the risk associated with the already established bases of jurisdiction. (01-09-2013)
Browne v. Portland Adventist Medical CenterCivil Procedure: When reviewing the denial of a motion for directed verdict, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and the verdict cannot be set aside unless the court can affirmatively say that there is no evidence from which the jury could have the facts necessary to establish the elements of plaintiff's cause of action.(12-12-2012)
Oregon Education Ass'n v. Oregon Taxpayers UnitedCivil Procedure: Under the law of the case doctrine, if an earlier ruling was necessary to the adjudication of an issue before the court, it is binding and conclusive upon both the inferior court in any further steps or proceedings in the same litigation and upon the appellate court itself in any subsequent appeal or other proceeding for review.(11-07-2012)
State v. PenneyCriminal Procedure: Although a decision regarding what citation to issue gives a police officer discretion regarding whether the vehicle at issue will be impounded, such discretion is constitutionally permissible.(10-17-2012)
NW Property Wholesalers v. SpitzCivil Procedure: Pursuant to ORS 86.750, notice of sale to be served on an occupant of property, in order to terminate that person's interest in the property, must be done in the manner in which a summons is served under ORCP 7 D.(08-29-2012)
R & R Tree Service vs. SAIF Corp.Administrative Law: Pursuant to OAR 836-042-0060, absent verifiable payroll records maintained by the employer that disclose a specific allocation for each individual employee, the entire payroll of the employee shall be assigned to the highest rated classification exposure.(08-15-2012)
Ericsson v. StateLand Use: In order to prove that a claimant lawfully was permitted to establish dwellings or lots under section 6 of Measure 49, a claimant must prove by evidence in the DLCD administrative record that it is more likely than not that the claimant would have been actually permitted to establish the use, based on the application of prior law.(08-08-2012)
California Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Federated Mutual Ins. Co.Insurance Law: Under ORS 742.534, the legislature's intent was to provide a mandatory arbitration remedy in regards to legal liability and the amount of PIP reimbursement, and therefore these two issues may not be litigated.(07-25-2012)
State v. MooreAppellate Procedure: The Court of Appeals will not hear arguments that are not preserved at the trial court.(05-09-2012)
State v. KephartAppellate Procedure: Where the trial court does not address an issue or state what version of a statute it applied, and either issue is raised on appeal, the case will be vacated and remanded to the trial court.(04-18-2012)
Spillane and SpillaneFamily Law: The party requesting modification or termination of spousal support has the burden of demonstrating a current, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances from the time of the dissolution that precludes the earning capacity of the paying spouse.(03-28-2012)