Willamette Law Online

(19 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. DigestiCriminal Law: Under ORS 163.305(2), which defines forcible compulsion necessary for first-degree sexual assault, the compulsive physical force exhibited against the victim need not be applied directly to the physical body but need only be sufficient to compel the victim to submit to the sexual conduct.(12-10-2014)
SAIF v. ThompsonWorkers Compensation: Under ORS 656.802(4), the “clear and convincing” standard of proof required to rebut the firefighter’s presumption under Workers Comp law does not require the defendant to prove an alternative cause of the condition, only that it’s asserted claim is “highly probable.” (12-03-2014)
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)