Willamette Law Online

(37 summaries)

Kraig Moore

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Wright v. TurnerInsurance Law: The term "accident", as used in statutorily prescribed insurance contracts, is interpreted by legislative intent. Furthermore, whether more than one "accident" has occurred is ordinarily a question of fact reserved for the factfinder.(02-21-2014)
Robinson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.Civil Procedure: In regards to personal jurisdiction, the appropriate standard for determining if the "arising out of or relating to" requirement supports the exercise of specific jurisdiction is the but-for and foreseeability of litigation test. (12-19-2013)
Klutschkowski v. PeaceHealthConstitutional Law: A statutory cap on a jury's award of noneconomic damages is unconstitutional if the plaintiff's cause of action was recognized by the common law in place when Oregon's Constitution was adopted. (09-26-2013)
Gable v. State Post-Conviction Relief: A post-conviction claim for relief based on inadequate assistance of counsel must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. (06-27-2013)
Haugen v. KitzhaberConstitutional Law: A reprieve is effective regardless of whether the reprieve is accepted or rejected by the grantee. (06-20-2013)
In re WaltonProfessional Responsibility: The Oregon Supreme Court independently determines sanctions for reciprocal discipline proceedings when the lawyer's conduct also violates Oregon's professional rules.(10-11-2012)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
City of Beaverton v. Pack Criminal Procedure: When reviewing the sufficiency of a jury instruction, the Court will review all instructions given to determine whether the jury was properly informed of the applicable requirements of the crime charged. (04-16-2014)
Bradley v. State of Oregon Land Use: Under ORS 376.185(1), a court shall not unreasonably withhold its consent to a landowner's petition for a way of necessity. Whether consent is unreasonably withheld is measured by whether the withholding was arbitrary or capricious. (04-02-2014)
Croghan v. Don's Dugout, LLCCivil Procedure: When a party believes that a verdict is inconsistent it must (1) object to the verdict before the jury is discharged, and (2) request jury clarification of the matter under ORCP 59 G(4). (04-02-2014)
State v. HawkinsPost-Conviction Relief: Under ORS 138.230, an error is not harmless when a defendant is denied their right to an acquittal and their right to have the judgment reflect that acquittal.(02-26-2014)
Leach v. Scottsdale Indemnity Co.Insurance Law: An insurer's duty to defend arises when a claim against its insured could, without amendment, impose liability for conduct covered by the policy. An insurer's duty to indemnify arises only where the insured is actually liable for harm or injury covered by the policy. (02-20-2014)
State v. DelongCriminal Procedure: When an individual consents to a search following a custodial interrogation where Miranda warnings were not given, that consent is not a knowing and voluntary waiver of the individual's rights under the Oregon Constitution.(01-29-2014)
State v. A. D. G. Juvenile Law: Under ORS 419B.923(7), the juvenile court may enter default judgment, terminating an individual's parental rights, only when that person is absent from the hearing or trial on termination petition. (01-02-2014)
State v. LaneSentencing: OAR 213-012-0040(2) limits a trial court’s authority to impose consecutive prison terms when there is a single probation violation. (01-02-2014)
WaterWatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dept.Water Rights: Under ORS 537.230(2) the measuring point for determining the portion of a permit that is "undeveloped" for purposes of ORS 537.230(2)c, and the "maximum rate diverted for beneficial use before the extension" for the purposes of ORS 537.230(2)b, is the expiration of the development deadline in the permit or last-issued extension. (12-11-2013)
State v. Patton Criminal Law: Material variance between pleadings and proof does not exist when a rational trier of fact could conclude, based on credible testimony and reasonable inferences, that a defendant committed the alleged crime.(10-23-2013)
Gilmore and AmbroseFamily Law: When calculating child support obligations the court must follow the steps of the child support guidelines formula. (10-09-2013)
Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc.Contract Law: An individuals right to disaffirm a voidable contract is destroyed upon ratification. (09-05-2013)
Quick Collect, Inc. v. HigginsAppellate Procedure: Under ORAP 5.45(1), a party claiming error must present the claim of error to the trial court before the Court of Appeals will consider it on appeal. (08-21-2013)
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Columbia River Administrative Law: Under ORS 196.115(3)(d), the Court shall remand the commission's acceptance of a proposal if it is inconsistent with an agency rule, or an officially stated position or practice, unless the inconsistency is explained, or if the commission's decision is in violation of a statutory provision.(06-19-2013)
State v. CoronadoAppellate Procedure: The Court follows a two-step process in deciding to review alleged plain error. First, if the error is unpreserved, it must be one of law, apparent or not reasonably in dispute, and appear on the face of the record. Second, the Court considers factors to decide if the error should be reviewed. (05-30-2013)
McMurchie and McMurchieFamily Law: When determining a parent's presumed income, for the purposes of determining a child support obligation, a court may consider the parent's actual income or potential income, but not both.(05-22-2013)
Dow and DowFamily Law: In modifying a stipulated judgment of dissolution, a provision that does not contravene public policy or the law does not limit a court's ability to modify it. Additionally, a change of circumstances initiating modification can be the product of either party. (04-24-2013)
State v. McGeeCriminal Procedure: When applying ORS 135.747 in a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, the Court uses a two-step approach. First, the Court determines the total amount of delay and subtracts any delay caused by Defendant's application or consent. Second, the Court determines whether the remaining delay is reasonable.(02-27-2013)
State v. AitkenCriminal Law: Under ORS 161.067(3), criminal violations involving the same conduct against the same victim will merge unless the violations can be separated by a sufficient pause in the defendant's criminal conduct that would allow an opportunity to renounce the criminal intent.(02-06-2013)
PIH Beaverton, LLC v. Super One, Inc.Contract Law: Under ORS 12.135(3), an improvement to real property is considered substantially complete when the contractee has accepted the completion in writing or when a contractee has accepted construction that actually has been completed.(01-09-2013)
Steele and SteeleFamily Law: A court may authorize an award of indefinite compensatory and maintenance spousal support if, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the award provides to both spouses a standard of living roughly similar to the one during marriage.(12-12-2012)
Dept. of Human Services v. S.C.SJuvenile Law: Jurisdiction in custody cases involving multiple jurisdictions is determined by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), ORS 109.701 to 109.834. Pursuant to ORS 109.741(1), the court may make an initial custody determination.(11-07-2012)
State v. TurnerCriminal Procedure: Under State v. Glushko/Little, failure to appear does not equal the defendant's consent to a delay for the purposes of ORS 135.747. The Court may also look to the cause of the delay in determining whether the Defendant was brought to trial in a reasonable amount of time.(09-26-2012)
State v. SotoCriminal Procedure: An unlawful seizure occurs when, without justification, the totality of a police officer's actions have led a person to reasonably believe that their liberty or freedom of movement was restricted by the officer's show of authority.(08-29-2012)
Rice v. RabbProperty Law: The legislature will clearly state if a discovery rule applies to a statute of limitations.(08-08-2012)
State v. O'HaraCriminal Law: To satisfy the element of forcible compulsion, the trier of fact may consider circumstances known to the defendant that relate to whether the victim was in fact compelled.(07-18-2012)
State v. HollywoodEvidence: Testimony of one witness regarding the credibility of another witness is impermissible. Additionally, the Court suggests that the trial judge should summarily cut off questions that elicit testimony on the credibility of a witness so that a jury is not contaminated by it.(06-27-2012)
State v. JohnsonCriminal Law: Under ORS 166.382(1)(a)(A), the meaning of the term "bomb" requires that a device be capable of detonating under certain conditions. The statute does not suggest that a device is not a "bomb" just because the device is temporarily disabled.(06-13-2012)
Case v. BurtonProperty Law: Under common law and ORS 105.620, a claim for adverse possession fails if the claimant does not adequately identify the area that was allegedly adversely possessed.(05-16-2012)
State v. YoungSentencing: When a court imposes a post-prison supervision term it cannot be for an indefinite period and dependent upon the amount of prison time the defendant actually serves. If the sentence is concurrent with a prison term, the sum of the two terms cannot exceed the statutory maximum indeterminate sentence.(05-02-2012)
State v. JordanCriminal Procedure: Under ORS 137.106(1)(a), the appropriate cut-off date for restitution is the date imposed by the sentencing court, and the trial court may award restitution for income lost up until that date.(03-28-2012)