Willamette Law Online

(36 summaries)

Inna Levin

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
In re BarnackProfessional Responsibility: Following the misconduct of a judge, the Commission of Judicial Fitness and Disability and the accused may submit stipulated facts and an appropriate sanction to the Supreme Court under ORS 1.420 to ORS 1.430, and the Court can approve such stipulation pursuant to ORS 1.430(2).(02-07-2013)
In re ClarkProfessional Responsibility: Under BR 10.7, a prevailing party is entitled to costs and disbursements. Additionally, the purpose of BR 10.7 is to attempt to settle disputes before a hearing, and allowing a waiver of the timeliness requirement would undermine this purpose.(12-28-2012)
Downer v. Dept. of RevenueTax Law: Tax assessments will be upheld where a tobacco distributor purchases tobacco for redistribution from a business on a tribal reservation in Washington.(12-06-2012)
State v. BrayAppellate Procedure: Placing evidence on the record as a sealed exhibit for appellate review does not qualify as discovery.(11-30-2012)
In re ObertProfessional Responsibility: A suspension of 6 months from the practice of law is reasonable for the violation of 7 Rules of Professional Conduct stemming from the misappropriation of client funds and failure to provide competent representation.(07-19-2012)
State v. PowellEvidence: Under ORS 136.425(1), incriminatory statements that are made under promises of leniency are inadmissible as evidence.(07-19-2012)
Green v. KrogerBallot Titles: Under ORS 250.085, the Supreme Court may review arguments concerning language that was removed from the title after the comment period had ended. Further, the language "corporate income" is misleading when it is meant to refer solely to taxable income.(03-15-2012)
Paul v. Providence Health System-ORTort Law: Plaintiffs cannot recover for speculative, future financial harm or emotional distress related to a risk of loss when a current injury has not been claimed.(02-24-2012)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Ogle v. NoothPost-Conviction Relief: Under ORS 138.580, documentation attached to a post-conviction petition are sufficient as long as they verify, corroborate, or substantiate the claims made in the petition that the petitioner aims to prove. (01-30-2013)
Dept. of Human Services v. W.H.F.Indian Law: Under ORS 419B.476(2)(a), DHS is not required to show an active effort to provide remedial services to prevent the break up of an Indian family if the permanency plan at the time of the hearing is adoption.(12-19-2012)
Lithia Medford LM, Inc. v. YovanRemedies: In a small-damages case, punitive damages can exceed a single digit ratio where, in consideration of similar cases and the deterrent function it serves, the punitive damage award is not grossly excessive.(12-19-2012)
State v. BeckEvidence: Officer testimony regarding a defendant's marijuana consumption does not need to be excluded at trial when the basis for the charged DUII is primarily alcohol intoxication, even when the officer did not conduct a complete drug recognition evaluation.(12-12-2012)
State v. CoburnCriminal Procedure: Under ORS 135.747, the speedy trial provision, a delay attributable to the State in bringing an individual to trial is reasonable if it was caused by lack of judicial resources and the delay was less than the applicable statute of limitations.(12-12-2012)
Chou v. Farmers Ins. ExchangeInsurance Law: Clauses found in a homeowner's insurance policy that are ambiguous as to their application will be construed against the policy drafter.(11-21-2012)
Compressed Pattern, LLC v. Employment Dept. Tax SectionEmployment Law: Under ORS 670.600(3), a person has an independently established business when his work location is both maintained and separate from the person for whom he is providing services.(10-31-2012)
Tracy v. NoothPost-Conviction Relief: Under ORCP 55 (C)(2), a post-conviction court must issue a subpoena duces tecum to the party requesting it.(08-29-2012)
Smith v. Dept. of CorrectionsAdministrative Law: Under ORS 183.310(9), a rule of conduct for individuals who are in the custody of the Department of Corrections does not need to be promulgated pursuant to the APA.(08-22-2012)
Clackamas Grocery Outlet Warehouse v. OLCCAdministrative Law: A retail location which sells alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption may only store those items that it intends to sell at the same location.(07-25-2012)
State v. BirchardCriminal Procedure: A trial court commits plain error when it refuses to merge two guilty verdicts for resisting arrest from a single offense into a single conviction based on the efforts of two officers.(07-18-2012)
Sjomeling v. LasserAppellate Procedure: Under ORS 19.415(3), unless the Court of Appeals uses its discretion in reviewing an equitable matter de novo, the standard of review for a trial court's determination regarding the best interests of a child is abuse of discretion.(07-11-2012)
Noble v. Dept. of Fish and WildlifeAdministrative Law: An interpretation by an agency of its own rule will be upheld as long as it is plausible and consistent with the rule itself.(05-31-2012)
Krohn v. Hood River School DistrictAdministrative Law: A plaintiff does not need to exhaust administrative remedies if the claims for which she is seeking relief are not governed by a collective bargaining agreement, but rather are statutory in nature.(05-16-2012)
State v. BobbittEvidence: Under former ORS 192.555(2)(a), an individual's financial records may not be disclosed unless the financial institution has an independent suspicion that the individual has violated the law; a relayed suspicion by law enforcement is not sufficient.(04-04-2012)
Hayward v. BellequePost-Conviction Relief: The reasonableness of trial counsel's performance is evaluated from the counsel's perspective at the time of the alleged error and in light of all the circumstances.(02-15-2012)
State v. FergusonEvidence: A witness may not give testimony, expert or otherwise, as to the credibility of whether he or she believes another witness is telling the truth.(02-01-2012)
State v. BrooksEvidence: Testimony by a witness regarding an out-of-court statement by a non-witness about the credibility of the victim is not inadmissible. An error by the trial court is harmless when the trial court explicitly indicates that it is not relying on the incorrectly admitted evidence.(01-25-2012)
Martin v. SAIFWorkers Compensation: The director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services has the authority to change the date of injury in a notice of closure as part of his duty to determine the amount of compensation to which the claimant is entitled.(12-29-2011)
State v. ReedCriminal Procedure: A defendant's waiver of right to counsel is only valid if done voluntarily and knowingly; the validity of the waiver is judged by a review of the totality of the circumstances.(12-14-2011)
State v. HennagirCriminal Law: Under ORS 161.405(1), a reasonable jury can infer the intent to complete a crime when substantial steps have been taken toward completion, even when there is no evidence of the actual objective.(11-09-2011)
Dept. of Human Services v. D.S.F.Family Law: Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), custody of a child may not be taken away from a parent unless the parent's conduct is reasonably likely to threaten the welfare of the child.(10-26-2011)
State v. BanksAppellate Procedure: If a defendant does not preserve an error of law at the trial court, the appellate court may exercise its discretion in correcting the error.(10-19-2011)
Friends of Polk County v. OliverLand Use: In order for a person to have vested rights to develop land under Measure 49 section 5(3), a determination of the nature of the ultimate project and an assessment of the expenditure ratio must be made.(09-28-2011)
State v. SingerConstitutional Law: A person has been seized under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution if a reasonable person, under the totality of the circumstances, would believe that his or her freedom of movement has been restricted by a law enforcement officer.(09-21-2011)
State v. SullivanCivil Procedure: Administrative agencies lack jurisdiction to make judgments on matters that are pending on appeal in court.(08-31-2011)
State v. WigginsCriminal Procedure: The ‘automobile exception’ to the warrant requirement of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution applies as long as the vehicle in question is functionally mobile, even if law enforcement officers have broken contact with the vehicle.(08-17-2011)
Wallace v. State ex rel PERBAdministrative Law: Plaintiffs must first exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief.(08-10-2011)