Willamette Law Online

(43 summaries)

Gabriel Lee

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. LykinsSentencing: Under ORS 162.285, the victim of the crime of tampering with a witness is the state in its official capacity as administrator of justice. Under OAR 213-008-0002, a convicted defendant is subject to aggravated sentencing when the direct victim of the substantive crime is “particularly vulnerable.” (04-23-2015)
State v. NixAppellate Procedure: Appeals under ORS 138.222(4) are only available in felony cases; writs of mandamus must be specifically requested, or in exceptional circumstances, may be allowed where the required information is available; and Oregon appellate decisions rendered without appellate authority must be vacated.(03-05-2015)
Bagley v. Mt. BachelorContract Law: A liability release is unconscionable and unenforceable if both its procedural and substantive elements are so against public policy that they protect negligent premises-management and allocate all negligent damages upon a paying customer with no bargaining power.(12-18-2014)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. ArdizzoneCriminal Law: Under OEC 404(3), a trial court does not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of past criminal convictions offered to prove a criminal defendant's intent, so long as the trial court properly balances the relevance and prejudicial impact of the evidence. (05-06-2015)
Hendrickson Trucking, Inc. v. ODOTAdministrative Law: Under OAR 137-003-0528, if an issue of fact is in dispute, ODOT must provide a hearing to determine whether good cause exists for a late petition for reassessment of road-use taxes. (04-29-2015)
State v. MunozCriminal Procedure: In a murder trial, a defendant is not prejudiced by a trial court’s failure to provide a concurrence instruction when two alternative factual ways of proving the “causes” element of the crime exist. (04-22-2015)
Smith v. Psychiatric Security Review BoardAdministrative Law: OAR 859-050-0010 was a validly adopted administrative rule under the guiding statutes ORS 183.413 and ORS 161.346 because the rule included a non-exhaustive, incomplete list of prehearing notice requirements that did not exclude other items that may be required under other statutes.(04-15-2015)
Dept. of Human Services v. E.L.G.Family Law: A no-contact order between incestuous parents in a juvenile dependency case may only prohibit sexual contact under ORS 163.525, rather than no-contact whatsoever.(04-08-2015)
Couch Investments, LLC v. PeverieriArbitration: An arbitrator does not exceed its authority under ORS 36.695(3) to order "just and appropriate" remedies when the arbitration agreement fails to lay out express award guidelines. (04-01-2015)
SAIF v. TranerWorkers Compensation: Under ORS 656.262, when a workers' compensation claimant requests acceptance of a new or omitted medical condition, the insurer must clearly either accept or deny the claim within 60 days, or else the insurer may be required to pay the claimant's attorney fees even if no compensation or penalties are assessed. (03-25-2015)
State v. SchnurEvidence: Under OEC 404(3), it is not plain error for a trial court to instruct the jury that it may use evidence of a past guilty plea when determining whether a defendant committed actus reus of the charged crime.(03-18-2015)
State v. SimonovCriminal Law: A conviction under ORS 164.135(1)(a) for unauthorized use of a vehicle may only be reached if the jury finds that defendant knowingly used the vehicle without the consent of its owner. (03-18-2015)
Stoeckert v. NoothPost-Conviction Relief: Under ORS 138.580 and Ogle v. Nooth, 355 Or. 570 (2014), in order to receive a hearing, a petitioner for post-conviction relief need only show prima facie evidence “sufficient to submit the case to the factfinder” that, if true, would permit the court to rule in favor of the petitioner.(02-25-2015)
5 Star, Inc. v. Atlantic Casualty Ins. Co.Insurance Law: Under ORS 701.105(2003), in order to show unlawful contract reformation, a plaintiff must show that a new insurer agreed to the terms of a former insurance policy to be bound by that former policy. To prove negligent procurement of insurance, a plaintiff must show that defendant insurance agent was an agent of the particular insurer under ORS 744.078(4).(02-11-2015)
State v. LarsonPost-Conviction Relief: When determining whether to set aside a conviction under ORS 137.225, a court may only consider the circumstances and behavior manifested by a criminal defendant's conduct for the 10-year period after conviction.(02-04-2015)
Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co.Insurance Law: Under ORS 742.524(1)(a), personal injury protection (PIP) medical benefits do not include a covered individual’s transportation costs incurred when attending medical appointments or obtaining medication. (01-28-2015)
State v. NistlerCriminal Law: Under ORS 131.125(8), the statute of limitations for aggravated first-degree theft is three years, unless a theory of continuing criminal action is set forth in the indictment, which may toll the statute of limitations.(01-22-2015)
State v. NunesCriminal Procedure: A single criminal episode of possession during which a defendant felon has continuous actual or constructive possession of a firearm is not subject to the ORS 161.067 "anti-merger statute." (12-31-2014)
State v. PaniaguaEvidence: Under OEC 608(1), a defense witness may not offer character testimony if that witness has insufficient contact with the individual against whom the testimony is directed.(12-31-2014)
Intel Corp. v. BatchlerWorkers Compensation: Under ORS 656.268(10) and ORS 656.340(12), with each accepted claim for a work-compensable injury, an injured worker must be compensated for a minimum of 16 months, and may also be compensated for a maximum of 21 months with agreement from a self-insured employer.(12-24-2014)
State v. CookAttorney Fees: An erroneous attorney fee award is not reversible if the error is unpreserved for appeal, not plain on the face of the record, and invited by the appellant.(12-24-2014)
???Portland Fire Fighters’ Assn. v. City of PortlandLabor Law: Under ORS 243.672(1)(g), it is an unfair labor practice for a party to fail to comply with the results of an agreed-upon binding arbitration. (12-10-2014)
K.E.A. v. HalvorsonCivil Stalking Protective Order: Under ORS 30.866(1)(c), a stalking protective order shouldn’t have been issued when a respondent drives through a petitioner’s neighborhood three times and only makes contact with members of petitioner’s household as a response, despite respondent’s history of infrequent incidents of anger and aggression towards others.(12-03-2014)
PUC v. Employment DepartmentEmployment Law: Under ORS 657.176(2)(c), a claimant is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits when that claimant’s good cause for voluntarily leaving is based on medical necessity with no reasonable alternative and when the claimant has medical leave available through employment. (11-19-2014)
State v. PumphreyCriminal Law: Under ORS 137.106, a Defendant must pay restitution for economic damages incurred by violating a stalking protective order so long as there is a “but for” causal relationship between the criminal activity and the resulting the economic damages.(11-05-2014)
State v. RudnitskyyCriminal Procedure: Under Art. I, Sec. 9 of the Oregon Constitution, or the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police "stop" occurs when a reasonable person would believe that an officer either physically restrains a citizen's liberty in a significant way, or engages in a "show of authority" that reasonably conveys to the person a significant restriction on that person's freedom.(10-29-2014)
State v. BerrellezCriminal Procedure: Under Art. I, sec. 10 of the Oregon Constitution and former ORS 135.747 (2011), a defendant’s defense is not unreasonably prejudiced by an 8-year delay due to evasion of police, destruction of non-valuable case notes, and the death of a witness. (10-15-2014)
Patton v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Co.Insurance Law: If a homeowner's insurance policy contains ambiguous provisions relating to the time-frame in which an insured may recover, those provisions are held against the drafter of the policy.(10-08-2014)
State v. GonzalesCriminal Procedure: A police officer cannot rely on the "good-faith exception" to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to impound a car that does not impede traffic or pose a threat to safety when that police officer should have been on notice that the "community-caretaker exception" does not apply.(10-01-2014)
State v. GallegosEvidence: A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for continuance when a Defendant cannot show that an eyewitness could "be produced."(09-04-2014)
State v. TooleyCriminal Law: Under ORS 131.505(4), multiple murders committed in furtherance of an overarching criminal objective are part of the same criminal episode, despite a gap in time between the commission of each murder.(08-20-2014)
Munson v. Valley Energy Investment FundCivil Procedure: Under ORCP 21(A)(1), a trial court errs when it rules based on necessarily decided disputed issues of material fact. (08-13-2014)
State v. RinglerCriminal Procedure: A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying repeated motions for continuance when the record reflects that the moving party has not established good cause for a continuance.(08-06-2014)
State v. MichelConstitutional Law: Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, a renter does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy within the common area of a public storage facility. (07-16-2014)
State v. CrossSentencing: Under ORS 137.751, a trial court is no longer required to find “substantial and compelling reasons” to deny a defendant eligibility for alternative incarceration programs and early release.(07-09-2014)
State v. RitchieCriminal Procedure: Under ORS 138.071, if a defendant fails to appeal a judgment within 30 days, he cannot appeal a supplemental judgment entered afterwards because the same issues could have been raised after the first judgment was entered. (06-18-2014)
State v. BurciagaCriminal Law: Under O.R.S. 163.205(1)(a), a parent commits a crime of criminal mistreatment in the first degree if that parent withholds essential attention that is necessary to provide for a child’s basic bodily needs and survival.(06-11-2014)
State v. KellyAppellate Procedure: Pursuant to ORAP 5.45, Appellate courts have broad discretion to determine the prejudice of a plain error committed in the circuit court. Furthermore, sentencing guidelines may be discretionary with regards to unranked offenses. Finally, unspecified pleadings which are subsequently substantiated by discovery are not in error.(06-04-2014)
State v. StraughanCriminal Law: Under former ORS 135.747 (2011), an unjustified delay of trial for nearly seven months out of 21 months of delay in general is unreasonable, and must be dismissed without showing of "sufficient reason" to continue the case.(05-29-2014)
State v. MannixAppellate Procedure: Pursuant to ORS 136.220, a juror who is committed to becoming related to a primary witness does not have implied bias. Pursuant to ORAP 5.45, a party may not raise claims of error that are not preserved on the trial court record, even if it is a plain error.(05-21-2014)
State v. VanburenEvidence: Under ORS 98.005, in order for an officer to conduct a warrantless search of a closed bag, the officer’s subjective belief that the property is lost must be objectively reasonable—only then may the officer search the property to identify its owner.(05-14-2014)
State v. DavisEvidence: Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, police inventory procedures may constitute an unlawful search if they have no precise or meaningful limitations.(04-30-2014)
Lewis v. BeyerAdministrative Law: Under OAR 860-022-0041, the “automatic adjustment clauses” determined by the Public Utility Commission only apply to taxes levied on or after January 1, 2006. Furthermore, attorney’s fees are not appropriate in this case under ORS 183 (Administrative Procedures Act). (04-23-2014)