Willamette Law Online

(24 summaries)

Steven Mastanduno

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Westfall v. StateSovereign Immunity: Under ORS 30.265(6)(c), government employees responsible for applying policies enacted by high-level officials are protected by discretionary immunity when following the explicit orders of their superiors.(04-10-2014)
Montez v. CzerniakPost-Conviction Relief: In post-conviction proceedings, petitioner bears the burden of proving inadequate assistance of counsel. Counsel’s trial strategy must be unreasonable, without appropriate consideration for risks and benefits, for petitioner to prevail. (03-20-2014)
Peace River Seed Co-Op v. Proseeds MarketingContract Law: An aggrieved seller who has resold goods can recover the difference between contract price and market price under ORS 72.7080(1), even when market price damages would exceed resale damages under ORS 72.7060. (03-20-2014)
McCann/Harmon v. RosenblumBallot Titles: Under ORS 250.035, a ballot title must include a caption, results statements, and summery which adequately describe the effects of voting one way or another, and reasonably identify the subject matter. Where more specific language is available, it should be used to describe the ballot title in a simple and understandable way that adequately describes the effects a ballot title would have on current law.(01-30-2014)
State v. StarkCriminal Procedure: For the purposes of ORS 166.207(3)(a), the felon-in-possession statute, a defendant whose previous felony conviction has been reduced to a misdemeanor is excluded, but only if that reduction was in effect before a defendant was charged as a felon in possession.(08-15-2013)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. Rodriguez-PerezCriminal Procedure: Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, officers’ reasonable suspicion must is examined for what is objectively reasonable. An individual appearing agitated while his brother is being searched is not enough to warrant reasonable suspicion. (04-09-2014)
State v. MedinaCriminal Law: Under ORS 165.800, signing a false name to a police document, which is then used to discover the signer’s true name, constitutes converting and uttering the “personal identification of another person… with intent to deceive.” (04-02-2014)
Dept. of Human Services v. I.S.Juvenile Law: Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), juvenile dependency jurisdiction is proper when "condition or circumstances are such as to endanger the welfare" of the child. If a court does not find that a parent has exposed children to reasonable likelihood of harm, then the conditions of jurisdiction have not been met. (03-26-2014)
State v. BistrikaCriminal Law: Jury instructions which insert an irrelevant issue into a case constitute a reversible error. (03-26-2014)
State v. SmithEvidence: Under ORS 163.670(1), compelling or inducing a child to engage in sexually explicit conduct may be inferred by a factfinder from sexually explicit photographs in which a child’s facial expression conveys that the child has been persuaded or influenced to participate. A jury can infer from the nature of photographs, and the context of other evidence, that they are sexually explicit. (03-26-2014)
Neumann v. LilesTort Law: To avoid dismissal under ORS 31.150, Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, the plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case in support of their claim. The bar for presenting a prima facie case is low. (03-12-2014)
D.W.C. v. CarterCivil Stalking Protective Order: Under ORS 30.866, a stalking protective order requires a petitioner have subjective alarm, that alarm to be objectively reasonable, and that alarm to be the result of multiple qualifying contacts. (02-20-2014)
Talbott v. Teacher Standards & Practices CommissionAdministrative Law: A good faith answer to employment related questions that proves to be false is not knowingly misrepresenting facts under ORS 183.650(4). While a writing directly related to professional duties made while off duty does violate professional standards, a writing that is a private expression of opinion does not.(12-26-2013)
State v. DickersonCriminal Law: Under ORS 164.354, the phrase “property of another” includes property in which another has any legal or equitable interest and is not limited to proprietary or possessor ownership. (12-18-2013)
Dept. of Human Services v. F.J.S.Juvenile Law: A history of anger management and substance abuse problems, coupled with failure to attend court-ordered therapy, constituted sufficient evidence to show a parent was unfit and their child could not be integrated into that parent's home within a reasonable time. (11-27-2013)
State v. BurnsCivil Procedure: A trial decision that alters a defendant’s criminal history determination, but does not alter the sentence received, is justiciable as a defendant’s only avenue for challenging a criminal history determination. Under ORS 131.505(4), a series of crimes may constitute a single criminal objective if separated by only a short period of time. (11-14-2013)
State v. OliveCriminal Law: Under ORS 162.315, it must be shown that an individual intended to resist arrest in order to satisfy the elements of the offense. Additionally, in order to form the required intent the person must know they are being arrested. (10-23-2013)
State v. GoffEvidence: Under OEC 404(3), evidence of prior misconduct is inadmissible to show intent if defendant has not admitted the act in question. (10-09-2013)
Blue Iguana, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control CommissionAdministrative Law: The “crowd management exemption” under ORS 181.871(2), which permits limited use of unlicensed security personnel at events involving liquor, applies only to “organized events,” and the discretion to define the terms of that statute rests with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. (09-18-2013)
State v. WhitmoreEvidence: Expert testimony of a scientific nature is so inherently persuasive that not only must an expert's credentials be testified to a jury, but a foundation must be built showing their methodology is scientifically valid.(07-24-2013)
Dept. of Human Services v. M.K.Juvenile Law: Under ORS 419B.476, "reasonable efforts" to allow a ward to be returned home must be determined by a totality of the circumstances analysis and not a single factor such as cost.(07-03-2013)
State v. BrownEvidence: Diagnosis of a victim as sexually abused or “highly concerning for sexual abuse” requires physical evidence to support it in order to be admitted into evidence since such a diagnosis has more than a little likelihood to affect a jury’s verdict.(05-30-2013)
N.J.R. v. KoreFamily Abuse Prevention Act: The Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a dismissal of a FAPA violation when no substantial right has been affected. An SPO may only be given if requested as a remedy in civil action, or when a person complains to a law enforcement officer and that officer gives a citation with specific notice, not sua sponte.(05-08-2013)
Whalen v. American Medical Response Northwest, Inc.Civil Procedure: Under ORCP 47 E, expert testimony referred to in an affidavit may create a genuine dispute of fact, even when that information is very limited. Under ORS 12.110, the "discovery rule" applies to battery charges, beginning the two year statute of limitations from when the battery is reasonably discoverable.(04-17-2013)