Willamette Law Online

(16 summaries)

Joseph Lavelle

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Weber Coastal Bells v. MetroLand Use: Metro did not exceed its statutory authority when it approved a land use order on the basis of political necessity because the act that granted it authority for such approval did not state otherwise.(02-16-2012)
Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLPTort Law: A jury could find that when a lawyer informs their client that a breach of contract occurred, an objectively reasonable person would not suspect their attorney committed legal malpractice, thus causing their client's damages.(11-10-2011)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. DurstCriminal Procedure: Unlawful use of a weapon and menacing charges require the State to prove Defendant's intent to engage in particular conduct and the intent to cause a particular result. Therefore, jury instructions that refer to both the conduct and the result are not errors.(03-14-2012)
Reach Community Development v. StanleyLandlord Tenant: A letter from a landlord to tenant indicating that rent will not be accepted pending resolution of a BOLI investigation does not constitute a waiver of the landlord's right to insist on the payment of all accrued rent within 72-hours of issuing and serving a notice of nonpayment pursuant to ORS 90.394.(03-07-2012)
Bailey v. BaileyFamily Law: In determining a "just and equitable" amount in spousal support payments, a goal in a dissolution of a long term marriage is to provide a standard of living comparable to the one enjoyed during the marriage.(02-23-2012)
Caldeen Construction, LLC v. M. Mark KempCriminal Law: A trial court abuses its discretion in dismissing an amended complaint in an attorney negligence claim where the plaintiff attempts to amend the complaint to allege that but for the defendant's negligence, the outcome in the underlying case would have been different.(02-08-2012)
State ex rel Juv. Dept v. S.J.PJuvenile Law: A Juvenile Court may not order as compensatory damages against a youth if such damages are not recoverable as a remedy to a civil action.(01-25-2012)
State v. SnowCriminal Procedure: A county courthouse security checkpoint search is an unreasonable administrative search if the authority for that search gives broad latitude to the searching officer in deciding who is to be searched and how intrusive the search is.(12-29-2011)
Valencia v. GEP BTL, LLCWorkers Compensation: In determining eligibility for "supplemental disability," it is a prerequisite that the complainant to provide verifiable documentation of secondary employment, and there is no investigative obligation on the employer or employer's insurance carrier.(12-14-2011)
Hunter v. Saif CorporationWorkers Compensation: A Workers' Compensation Board decision is not supported by substantial evidence when a medical expert's opinions are disregarded without the board supplying any reason for doing so.(12-07-2011)
Dept. of Human Services v. N.S.Family Law: A court will not reverse a juvenile court's order of reunification to guardianship, despite a parent's participation in DHS services, when the parent places the child in harm's way.(11-02-2011)
State v. OlsenCriminal Procedure: An expert witness' testimony, erroneously admitted, will not be deemed a harmless error when that testimony is used to bolster the complainant's credibility and the case hinges on that credibility determination.(10-26-2011)
Dept. of Human Services v. G.D.W.Evidence: A child’s out-of-court statements in a dependency case are admissible as statements of a party opponent.(10-12-2011)
State v. MartinoCriminal Procedure: The argument that a defendant’s failure to object to an erroneous ruling was waived because it was a strategic choice to have the court believe that the defendant was remorseful is not plausible.(09-21-2011)
Clement v. MillsPost-Conviction Relief: A post-conviction settlement agreement that affects petitioner’s sentences in two separate cases will be enforced when the defendant agrees to the settlement agreement on the record, even though the defendant claimed there was no “meeting of the minds” when he misunderstood the agreement at the hearing.(09-08-2011)
State v. WisemanCriminal Procedure: When determining whether an officer has an objective reasonable suspicion that a crime is in progress, the facts must be viewed in the totality of the circumstances and consideration must be given to the officer’s experience and training.(08-17-2011)