Willamette Law Online

(14 summaries)

Ryan Kunes

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Williams v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco CompanyTort Law: The State of Oregon need not be a party to a claim, or hold an interest in a claim, because its right to a 60% share of punitive damages results from the operation of law, and not from any claim it is involved with. Thus, because the state's right to 60% of punitive damages does not constitute a claim, it is not a "released claim" subject to the Master Settlement Agreement.(12-02-2011)
Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of CommissionersLand Use: To determine the expense ratio in a Measure 49 vested rights pathway exemption, the court considers the following questions: What is the expected cost of the project? What is the expense ratio? Is the expense ratio substantial? As to the last question, ‘substantial’ is relative to the cost of the project, where a small ratio may equal millions of dollars.(10-20-2011)
State v. BakerCriminal Procedure: To establish whether a police officer satisfied the reasonableness requirement of the four-part “emergency aid exception” test to the warrantless search exception of the Oregon Constitution, the court should examine whether the police officer had an objectively reasonable belief, based on articulable facts that a warrantless entry was needed to aid others, prevent harm from occurring to others, or cease harm to others.(09-01-2011)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Bigby v. VogelTrusts and Estates: The passing of a decedent's real property by will to a constructive testamentary trust grants a life estate to the personal representative of the estate, upon which the holder of the life estate is granted all profits derived from the land.(02-29-2012)
Orchard v. MillsPost-Conviction Relief: To constitute a "criminal episode" under ORS 131.505(4) so as to warrant a "shift-to-I" criminal history score, the defendant's criminal actions must be continuous and uninterrupted conduct that establishes at least one offense and is so joined in time, place and circumstances, but that such conduct was directed towards the accomplishment of a single criminal objective.(12-29-2011)
State v. CopelandConstitutional Law: The public records hearsay exception is not limited to collateral matters only because 1) prior case history discussing the matter does not distinguish between “collateral” and essential facts, and 2) the framers of the Oregon Constitution incorporated several exceptions from the common law, including the public records exception.(12-29-2011)
State v. McLaughlinSentencing: For the purposes of resentencing, ORS 138.222(5)(a) allows an appellate court to remand for resentencing for a determination of compensatory fines to be paid from the defendant to the victim.(12-21-2011)
Jones v. Douglas CountyLand Use: HB 3166 legitimately imposes a retroactive 10-year statute of ultimate repose on the appeal of certain land use decisions because it is based upon a legitimate legislative purpose that is furthered by rational means.(12-14-2011)
State v. EsteyCriminal Law: In State v. Johnson the Court of Appeals held that the common law removed jurisdiction from the trial court once a defendant began serving a valid sentence. However, ORS 138.083 provides several exception to the common law rule, such as in cases of erroneous terms, factual errors, arithmetic errors, or clerical errors.(12-14-2011)
State v. McKeyCriminal Law: Like its identical statute upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Montana v. Egelhoff, ORS 161.125(2) lawfully makes voluntary intoxication “immaterial” to determine mental state.(12-14-2011)
State v. MooreCriminal Procedure: The Court accepted as stare decisis the voluntary and involuntary consent factors it established in Machuca I, declaring that consent given after an auto accident is not voluntary.(12-14-2011)
State v. MagelCriminal Law: To establish first-degree rape by threat of forcible compulsion, the threat must be an express communication of the intent to harm the other person. Additionally, the surrounding circumstances to establish forcible compulsion by threat varies according to the respective parties’ ages and prior history.(12-07-2011)
Rivera-Martinez v. VuAttorney Fees: To make a claim for attorney fees resulting from a minimum wage claim, the prevailing party must show that the claim clearly stems from clearly designed exceptions under ORS 653.055.(09-08-2011)
State v. WilsonCriminal Law: Where a defendant seeks relief under Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., he need not preserve the error in the record when he was not afforded the opportunity to do so.(09-08-2011)