Willamette Law Online

(17 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. GlazierCriminal Procedure: If the trial court commits an error in sentencing that requires resentencing, the appellate court will remand the entire case for resentencing. ORS 138.222(5)(a).(11-13-2014)
Smith v. FrankePost-Conviction Relief: In order to constitute inappropriate vouching for a minor, a witness’s testimony in regards to the minor’s ability to distinguish between truth and lie is insufficient.(10-22-2014)
Smith v. FrankeCriminal Law: In order to constitute inappropriate vouching for a minor, a witness’s testimony in regards to the minor’s ability to distinguish between truth and lie is insufficient.(10-22-2014)
State v. FujimotoCriminal Law: When the same conduct satisfies more than one theft statute that do not each contain an element that the other does not, the theft offenses will merge into one offense.(10-15-2014)
State v. MoultonConstitutional Law: In order to survive a motion to suppress evidence, the State must prove that a police officer’s warrantless search or seizure was constitutionally justified by an exception to the warrant requirement.(10-08-2014)
Gordon v. Teacher Standards and Practices CommissionAdministrative Law: A plaintiff must exhaust all administrative remedies, including requesting an agency hearing, before objecting to the substance of an administrative order before the court. (10-01-2014)
State v. Miller Criminal Procedure: In order to initiate a valid DUII search under the state and U.S. Constitutions, a police officer must have probable cause, a subjective belief that is objectively reasonable, that the driver being searched was driving under the influence of intoxicants; the officer may rely on a totality of the circumstances, including his own experience and judgment, to form this probable cause.(09-10-2014)
State v. RussumConstitutional Law: If a prosecutor makes an accidental intrusion into the defendant’s privileged communications with his client, the defendant bears the burden of proving that his constitutional rights have been prejudiced.(08-20-2014)
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)