Willamette Law Online

(9 summaries)

Michael Mickelson

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. Ziska/GarzaCriminal Law: A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if he uses that weapon to threaten the victim even without any intent to harm the victim.(08-07-2014)
Brumwell v. PremoProfessional Responsibility: An attorney’s client may obtain a protective order concerning communications not reasonably needed by the attorney to defend himself against breach of duty allegations.(05-30-2014)
Dunn v. City of MilwaukieProperty Law: To show a government taking of property under the Oregon Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 18, a plaintiff must show that an inevitable result of the government’s actions was the invasion of the plaintiff's property.(05-08-2014)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. LeeCriminal Procedure: It is not an illegal seizure of property if the officer does so in a reasonable attempt to protect himself or if he has a reasonable suspicion that the citizen poses an immediate threat of serious physical injury.(07-23-2014)
State v. BuchalskiAppellate Procedure: When any legal errors made by the lower court are found to be harmless, the Court will affirm the decision of the lower court.(07-02-2014)
Dept. of Human Services v. R.B.Family Law: A juvenile court may change a child permanency plan when its original jurisdictional judgment would put a reasonable parent on notice that the bases for the that decision would be used in a change of permanency plan.(06-25-2014)
State v. StraughanCriminal Procedure: A defendant’s motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds should be granted when the delay caused by the state is both unexpected and unreasonable. (05-29-2014)
State v. WhitlowCriminal Procedure: A court will balance the actual prejudice caused to a defendant by the state’s pre-indictment and speedy trial delay with the state’s justification for that delay in deciding whether or not to grant dismissal of charges.(04-23-2014)
Blankenship v. SmalleyCivil Law: Under ORS 67.040, a business partner’s actions will be binding on his partner unless the other party had actual knowledge or notice of that partner’s lack of authority to bind his partner. (04-16-2014)