Willamette Law Online

(12 summaries)

Jessica Johnson

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. Trident Seafoods Corp.Contract Law: Per an agreement, a fish processor must pay fair market value for fish caught over the established limits, whether or not the fish was ultimately processed.(03-14-2012)
State v. CoxEvidence: Testimony of an expert witness regarding the credibility of another witness should not be submitted to the jury when there is a substantial risk of the testimony prejudicing the jury toward a third witness.(02-29-2012)
Dew v. Bay Area Health DistrictEvidence: Under Oregon Evidence Code 401, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. In this case, the exclusion of medical testimony could make any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more probable than without the evidence.(02-15-2012)
State v. FreyCriminal Law: Where an action is a material fact to proving whether defendant committed a crime, the court shall give the jury a "Boots instruction." That is, at minimum 10 jurors must concur that a defendant intended to commit the crime, and that he intended to commit a material fact to that crime.(02-08-2012)
State v. S.J.F.Civil Commitment: Failure to inform the person on trial during a civil commitment hearing of their right to an attorney, right to subpoena witnesses, reason they are appearing in court, and the consequences of the proceeding constitutes plain error reviewable de novo.(12-21-2011)
Baggarley v. Union Pacific Railroad CompanyEmployment Law: When a claimant became aware of his or her work-related injury is a question of fact for the jury to decide in determining the statute of limitations period on a workplace injury claim.(11-23-2011)
Dinicola v. StateEmployment Law: Employees may be exempt from overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act depending on the nature of their work, and the classification of their job.(11-09-2011)
State v. CondonCriminal Procedure: The 90-day timeline established by Oregon's criminal restitution statute may be extended for good cause.(11-02-2011)
State v. ReynoldsCriminal Law: In order for a court to find intent to defraud, a person must have a conscious objective to use deception to take property.(10-19-2011)
Hood v. Employment Dept.Employment Law: In order to receive unemployment benefits, an employee fired for misconduct must fall either under a good faith error exception, or a refusal to follow an unreasonable employer policy exception.(09-21-2011)
Hubbell v. SandersCivil Law: To establish a restraining order under the Family Abuse and Prevention Act (FAA), a person must have sufficient evidence, subjectively or objectively, but evidence of future abuse and credible threat to physical safety must be present.(09-08-2011)
Warkentin v. Employment Dept.Employment Law: In order for an employee to quit with good cause and collect unemployment insurance benefits, an employee must have left employment under circumstances that a reasonable person would believe they had no reasonable alternative to leaving their job and such findings be the EAB must be supported by substantial evidence.(08-17-2011)