Willamette Law Online

(65 summaries)

Gabriel Lee

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Montara Owners Assn. v. La Noeu Development, LLCContract Law: If a construction contract is only partially overbroad under ORS 30.140, then only those overbroad portions are voidable, rather than the entire contract. If no evidence supports a jury instruction on diminution of value, a jury instruction on damages under the economic waste doctrine is harmless. (06-18-2015)
Green v. FrankePost-Conviction Relief: In post-conviction proceedings where petitioner argues inadequate representation at trial which resulted in prejudice to the case, the proper standards to apply are (1) whether trial counsel’s acts or omissions constituted inadequate assistance of counsel when viewed in light of counsel’s trial strategy; and (2) whether trial counsel’s acts or omissions, with consideration of trial strategy, “could have tended to affect” the outcome of the case.(06-04-2015)
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. RagibovEvidence: Under OEC 803(4), hearsay statements contained in medical records are admissible in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted if three requirements are met: (1) the statement must be made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment; (2) the statement must describe medical history, symptoms, pain or sensations, or the cause or eternal source of the injury; and (3) the statement must be reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. (06-24-2015)
Dept. of Human Services v. M.E.M.Juvenile Law: A trial court errs by entering a default judgment against a mother in a juvenile dependency case when that mother fails to appear in person at the dependency hearing but appears over the phone. (06-17-2015)
Myers v. BrockampPost-Conviction Relief: Under ORS 138.640(1), to be legally sufficient, a judgment denying post-conviction relief must, at a minimum, follow the three-prong test elicited in Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672, 676 (2010) with respect to each claim. Failure to do so compels a remand without reaching the merits of petitioner's claim for relief.(06-17-2015)
State v. AntonCriminal Procedure: Evidence is properly suppressed when it is obtained through an unlawful seizure. A seizure occurs when an officer announces that a defendant's fishing tags will be inspected, that seizure is unlawful if it is not supported by reasonable suspicion.(06-17-2015)
State v. DavidsonSentencing: Two consecutive, presumptive "true life" sentences imposed under ORS 137.719(1) against a recidivist defendant violates Article I, Section 16 of the Oregon Constitution, when that defendant has five convictions of public indecency for public masturbation without any sexually violent behavior or conduct.(06-17-2015)
State v. EneCriminal Procedure: Evidence is properly suppressed when it is obtained through an unlawful seizure. A seizure occurs when an officer announces that a defendant's fishing tags will be inspected, that seizure is unlawful if it is not supported by reasonable suspicion.(06-17-2015)
Hamlin v. HamlinTrusts and Estates: A trial court may use extrinsic evidence when reforming a decedent’s will when both parties seek reformation before the court, and each party offers a different intention for the will’s reformation.(06-10-2015)
Tseng v. TsengTrusts and Estates: Under ORS 130.710(1), after a settlor’s death, a trustee of a revocable trust must provide information about the administration of the trust during the settlor’s lifetime to qualified beneficiaries of the trust such that those beneficiaries have the material facts necessary to protect their interests.(06-10-2015)
Bova v. City of MedfordMunicipal Law: Under ORS 243.303(2), local governments are obligated to provide some health insurance to both current and retired employees, but may be relieved from such obligation to retired employees if the local government can show that providing healthcare insurance is unduly burdensome to the city because of cost or other circumstances. (06-03-2015)
Doyle v. City of MedfordMunicipal Law: ORS 243.303(2) does not create a tort-based private right of action, but an adversely-affected retired local government employee may seek remedy through the Declaratory Judgments Act, as well as supplemental relief including economic damages for the cost of obtaining substitute health insurance.(06-03-2015)
Johnson v. PremoAppellate Procedure: A party to a judgment by the Court of Appeals may petition to modify the written opinion to correct factual errors. If the petition is correct, the Court may allow the modification.(06-03-2015)
Kiltow v. SAIFWorkers Compensation: A decision by the Workers' Compensation Appellate Review Unit that an insurer prematurely closed a claim does not have a preclusive effect on the Court of Appeals or the Workers' Compensation Board. Furthermore, an insurer does not act unlawfully by removing a condition from a claim if it is determined that the condition was never part of the compensable injury. (06-03-2015)
Piazza v. KellimTort Law: Under Oregon tort law, a plaintiff must plead and prove foreseeability of harm from third-party criminal action by showing (1) the defendant’s conduct caused a foreseeable risk; (2) the risk was to an interest of a kind that the law protects against negligent invasion; (3) the defendant’s conduct was unreasonable considering the risk; (4) the conduct caused the plaintiff’s harm; and (5) the plaintiff was within the class of persons and the harm was within the general type of potential injuries that made the defendant’s conduct negligent.(06-03-2015)
State v. GibbonsCriminal Procedure: Under Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution, a police officer's decision to randomly "run" the plates of a car is constitutional if that officer's decision resulted from a confluence of training, time, and opportunity, and that officer would have "run" the plates from any other passing driver.(06-03-2015)
Weiker v. Douglas County School Dist. No. 4Workers Compensation: Under ORS 656.245(1)(a), medical treatment is only compensable when its purpose is to cure a condition caused in material part by a previously accepted, compensable condition. (05-28-2015)
American Civil Liberties Union v. City of EugeneAdministrative Law: Under ORS 181.854(4) of the Oregon Public Records Law, records of an internal investigation of a police officer's conduct are generally protected from disclosure if that investigation does not result in discipline. A trial court properly denies such requests when it properly balances the competing interests of the public and the public office by favorably presuming disclosure is required. (05-20-2015)
SAIF v. DeMarcoWorkers Compensation: Under ORS 656.005(7)(a)(A), a new/omitted condition is compensable if the major contributing cause of that consequential condition is a compensable injury. (05-13-2015)
SAIF v. DurantWorkers Compensation: Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), a determination that a workplace injury is a consequential condition does not violate the Last Injurious Exposure Rule if the prior condition was determined both compensable and the major contributing cause of the current condition. (05-13-2015)
State v. EppsSentencing: Under ORS 813.011, a defendant convicted of DUII who has been previously convicted of DUII at least twice in the prior 10 years may not have a suspended or reduced sentence from the mandatory 90-day incarceration. (05-13-2015)
State v. KimConstitutional Law: Under Article I, Section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, the right to effective counsel at a criminal trial may only be waived if the record reflects that the defendant “voluntarily and intelligently” waived his right to an attorney.(05-13-2015)
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)