Willamette Law Online

(22 summaries)

Erin Milos

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
PIH Beaverton, LLC v. Super One, Inc.Civil Law: Posting and filing a completion notice pursuant to ORS 87.045 does not necessarily establish that the owner has accepted construction of the improvement as complete for occupation as required by ORS 12.135, but will be considered along with evidence that must demonstrate written consent or assent to construction as sufficiently complete for its intended use or occupancy; ORS 12.135 will only be satisfied by establishing the date on which the construction was fully complete, not the date on which it was sufficiently complete for its intended use or occupancy.(04-24-2014)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Triangle Holdings, II, LLC v. Stewart Title Guaranty CompanyInsurance Law: Under ORS 742.061(1), an insured has not obtained “recovery” against an insurer where the insured accepted payment by the insurer and summary judgment was granted. “Recovery” is obtained by an insured only when a money judgment is granted against the insurer.(10-22-2014)
Horizon Air Industries, Inc. v. Davis-WarrenWorkers Compensation: Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), to establish a compensable injury a claimant must prove that an injury was suffered in the course of employment and that the injury resulted in death, disability, or was severe enough to require medical services, including medical services with only a diagnostic or prophylactic purpose.(10-15-2014)
Horizon Air Industries, Inc. v. Davis-Warren Workers Compensation: Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), to establish a compensable injury a claimant must prove that an injury was suffered in the course of employment and that the injury resulted in death, disability, or was severe enough to require medical services, including medical services with only a diagnostic or prophylactic purpose.(10-15-2014)
State v. CarleEvidence: Because the sender of a text message has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the digital copy of a text message delivered to a recipient’s cell phone, a “search” of the sender does not occur under Article I, section 9, or the Fourth Amendment, where police discovered a text message from Defendant on a recipient’s cell phone.(10-08-2014)
Norris v. R & T Manufacturing, LLCCorporations: Under ORS 95.230(1)(a), a transfer of all business assets to a newly formed company is fraudulent when the transfer is made for the purpose of avoiding payment of a judgment, where the new company conducted business nearly identical to the old company, and no other reason existed for transferring assets other than to avoid paying the judgment.(10-01-2014)
State v. CookCriminal Law: ORS 164.235(1) requires both possession and intent to use a burglary tool to commit or facilitate a forcible entry or theft by physical taking. The intent element cannot be proven merely by proving the possession element.(09-17-2014)
State v. Bennett - McCall Evidence: Automobile and officer safety exceptions applied to searches incident to an arrest for the sale of drugs where, with probable cause, officers searched defendants’ vehicle and a backpack found within; neither exception applied to a later search of the same backpack where defendants posed no immediate threat to officer safety and officers were in control of defendant’s backpack.(09-10-2014)
Broadway Cab LLC v. Employment DepartmentTax Law: Unemployment taxes are properly assessed for employee taxicab drivers who receive remuneration for services provided to benefit their employer, where the taxicab drivers do not qualify as independent contractors under ORS 670.600(3).(09-04-2014)
Regency Centers, L.P. v. Washington CountyLand Use: A Washington County Traffic Control Master Plan allowed, but did not require, the County to leave a traffic signal in place at the intersection of Tualatin Sherwood Road and Petitioners' driveways. The final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals properly held jurisdiction over the decision, and did not err in substance under ORS 197.850(9)(a) in remanding the decision to the County to determine whether the traffic signal must be left in place.(08-20-2014)
R & R Tree and Landscape, Inc. v. DCBSAdministrative Law: In order for payroll records to be "verifiable" under OAR 836-042-0060(1), the records must include a description of the duties performed by the employee without the need for additional explanation or interpretation and must be supported by original entries from other records prepared by the employee or the employee's direct manager or supervisor.(08-06-2014)
State v. EastonCriminal Procedure: A police officer may take reasonable steps to protect herself or others, including conducting a warrantless search or seizure, "if, during the course of a lawful encounter with a citizen, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that the citizen might pose an immediate threat of serious physical injury to the officer or to others then present"; the state bears the burden of establishing that, based on the totality of the circumstance at the time, "the officer subjectively believed that a defendant posed an immediate threat of serious physical injury and that the officer's belief was objectively reasonable."(07-23-2014)
State v. GoodenoughCriminal Law: For offenses committed after January 1, 2009, defendants' eligibility for AIPs must be analyzed under ORS 137.751(1) rather than ORS 137.750(1), the former statute used for AIP eligibility analysis.(07-09-2014)
State v. LangeCriminal Law: When an officer ordered defendant out of a restroom, that constituted a stop because a reasonable person in defendant's position would have believed that his freedom of movement was intentionally restricted. (07-02-2014)
Union Lumber Co. v. MillerAlternative Dispute Resolution: Failure by an arbitrator and opposing counsel to serve documents related to arbitration and judgment as required by law are mistakes that require a court to set aside a judgment under ORCP 71B. (06-18-2014)
State v. VerardoEvidence: When a defendant proffers exculpatory hearsay statements for the truth of the matter asserted during his case-in-chief, defendant is subject to impeachment under OEC 806, even where the State had offered the statements in the first instance as statements of a party opponent under OEC 801(4)(b)(A).(06-11-2014)
Amerivest Financial, LLC v. MaloufCorporations: When the expected profits of investment transactions are the result of management and control by a company’s own officers, the investment transactions are not “investment contracts” for the purposes of securities fraud under ORS 59.137.(06-04-2014)
State v. EllisCriminal Law: The speedy trial delay period is measured from the date of the most recent accusatory instrument where prior accusatory instruments were dismissed, even when a new accusatory instrument is issued before the previous one is dismissed. This is measured from the initial filing date of the original instrument when that instrument was amended but not dismissed. A net delay of approximately 12 months due to insufficiency of judges is not unreasonable.(05-29-2014)
State v. BeasleyCriminal Law: An individual is not “stopped” when an officer engages in “mere conversation” with the individual absent an explicit or implicit show of authority that objectively restricts the individual’s liberty; an individual is not “seized” when an officer requests and checks the individual’s identification with the consent of the individual, and retains the identification for a reasonable period of time to examine it.(05-21-2014)
State v. WilcherCriminal Law: A defendant’s right to be heard “by himself” is fully exercised by testifying under oath as a witness, and does not include the right to make an unsworn statement to the jury during the case-in-chief.(05-14-2014)
IAFF, Local 3564 v. City of Grants PassLabor Law: Passage of the PECBA, which permits employees to bargain collectively with their public employers, did not nullify the ORS 652.080 mandate that firefighters’ authorized vacation or sick leave time shall be considered as time on regular duty for the purpose of calculating overtime entitlement.(05-07-2014)
C.J.L. v. LangfordCivil Stalking Protective Order: In order for an Stalking Protective Order to be issued, under ORS 30.866, a petitioner must show that speech-based contacts instill a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, are unequivocal, and are objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts, such that the addressee believes the actor intends and is able to carry them out. Threats that are hyperbole, rhetorical excesses, and impotent expressions of anger or frustration are insufficient, even if they alarm the addressee.(04-23-2014)