Willamette Law Online

(18 summaries)

Darin Markwardt

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Strawn v. Farmer's Insurance Company of OregonAttorney Fees: When determining the amount of a reasonable attorney fee award in a case that involves both a statutory fee-shifting award and a common-fund award, a court may consider utilizing both the lodestar and overall percentage method.(02-22-2013)
PSU Association of University Professors v. PSUEmployment Law: Pursuant to ORS 659A.030(1)(f), a public university may not discontinue employee grievance procedures when a public employee's contract mandates such procedures, even when the employee seeks statutory discrimination relief.(11-29-2012)
Halperin v. PittsAttorney Fees: Pursuant to ORS 20.080(2), defendants who prevail in small tort actions do not need to have delivered a prelitigation demand letter in order to obtain attorney fees.(10-04-2012)
Morgan v. Amex Insurance CompanyAttorney Fees: ORS 742.001 does not limit the scope of ORS 742.061 to only those insurance policies delivered or issued for delivery in Oregon.(09-14-2012)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. EngersethSentencing: Pursuant to ORS 136.773(1), a trial court's failure to receive a written waiver for a jury trial does not create a prejudicial error if defendant previously stipulated to the sentencing enhancement.(03-27-2013)
Wood Park Terrace Apartments Limited Partnership v. Tri-Vest, LLCContract Law: Under Oregon contract law, the statute of limitations for negligence claims begins to accrue at the moment established in the contract. (01-30-2013)
Ballinger v. NoothPost-Conviction Relief: Pursuant to ORCP 71 B(1)(a), a petitioner's response to a motion for summary judgment, in a post conviction relief case, must address the merits of the defendant's motion for summary judgment and cannot rely solely on the allegations in the post conviction relief petition.(12-27-2012)
Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC v. Columbia RiverkeeperAdministrative Law: Pursuant to ORS 197.825, a county's withdrawal of a decision for reconsideration of a matter that is currently being appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) does not divest LUBA of exclusive jurisdiction over that matter.(10-24-2012)
Vukanovich v. KineContract Law: Pursuant to ORS 93.740, in order to assert a valid claim of lis pendens, a party to a purchasing agreement must have had a present interest in the discussed property at the time of the agreement.(08-22-2012)
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. SchwanenbergInsurance Law: Under ORS 656.583(1), an insurer must inform a claimant about a potential conflict of interest.(08-08-2012)
Murphy v. All-StateCivil Procedure: The question of whether a claim for fraud against an insurance company is time barred pursuant to ORS 12.110(1), or whether the plaintiff justifiably relied on the statements, or whether there was a special relationship, is a fact intensive inquiry that ought to be made by a jury.(07-25-2012)
State v. GoodenowSentencing: Pursuant to ORS 131.550 and ORS 131.604, a court's order that a defendant forfeit the entirety of her lottery ticket winnings, which were acquired in a fraudulent manner, does not constitute a violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the 8th Amendment.(07-11-2012)
Worthington v. Estate of Milton E. DavisCivil Procedure: Under ORCP 23C, the decedent and the representatives of decedent's estate are entirely different parties. Choosing the incorrect party constitutes misidentification and an amended complaint will only relate back if it satisfies the requirements of ORCP 23C.(06-27-2012)
State v. PowellCriminal Procedure: Multiple second-degree robbery verdicts merge into a single count per victim; however, second-degree robbery verdicts do not merge with first-degree robbery verdicts.(06-20-2012)
State v. WirfsCriminal Law: An error is not harmless when a criminal defendant is precluded from rebutting the state's argument due to sustained objections to the defense's direct questions. Additionally, the scope of redirect examination cannot exceed that which was covered during cross examination.(05-31-2012)
Department of Consumer and Business Services v. Zurich AmericanAdministrative Law: The Department of Consumer and Business Services does not possess authority to compel payment from a private insurance company based on the failure of the insurance company's client to file notice of a working-leasing arrangement with the DCBS.(05-02-2012)
Gest v. Oregon AFL-CIOLabor Law: An informal employee grievance meeting is a "concerted activity" that is regulated by the NLRA. Under [italics]Garmon[/italics] , the state must allow the National Labor Relations Board to determine labor disputes that the NLRA was designed to protect or prohibit.(04-04-2012)
Wolfe and WolfeFamily Law: Limited integration of separate property assets into the common financial affairs of a long term marriage significantly affect the distribution of marital property.(03-14-2012)