Willamette Law Online

(15 summaries)

Jayme Mori

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Blachana, LLC v. Bureau of Labor and Industries Labor Law: Under ORS 652.414(3) and ORS 652.301(1), the correct test to determine a “successor employee” for the purpose of Wage Security Fund reimbursement is whether it conducts essentially the same business as conducted by its predecessor, using a nonexclusive list of factors set out by the Bureau of Labor and Industries to determine whether a company conducts “essentially the same business.”(01-16-2014)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Bova v. City of MedfordEmployment Law: Under ORS 243.303(2), the Supreme Court has rejected the argument that "if there are providers available who are willing to provide [health insurance] coverage that includes retirees, the city must provide that coverage, regardless of cost or other circumstances" and reasons that the statute was not intended to be “unduly burdensome”; Under ORS 659A.030(1)(b), a plaintiff’s complaint must plead age discrimination based on a theory of disparate impact. (04-02-2014)
Dept. of Human Servs. v. D. A. S., Jr.Juvenile Law: Under ORS 107.097(3)(a), to continue jurisdiction over a juvenile, the party asserting jurisdiction must present evidence that the juvenile would be exposed to a current threat of serious loss or injury. (03-05-2014)
State v. NugentCriminal Procedure: In a criminal trespass case, even if the court erred by giving a single instruction rather than a double instruction, the error does not require reversal if the instruction did not mislead the jury. (02-12-2014)
State v. HarrisEvidence: Under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is an error of law to admit evidence against a defendant when the defendant does not have an opportunity to confront the evidence presented against her. (12-18-2013)
Hernandez-Nolt v. Washington CountyCivil Procedure: In a wrongful discharge claim, an employee’s claim cannot be considered untimely where a genuine dispute regarding the date an employee leaves employment exists, because a wrongful discharge claim does not accrue until the employee leaves the employment.(11-27-2013)
Hale v. StateCivil Procedure: To grant an action for declaratory judgment, the complaint must state a justiciable controversy. A justiciable controversy must include present facts, not an issue based on future events, and must result in specific relief through a binding decree, not a non-binding advisory opinion.(11-14-2013)
State v. SagdalCriminal Procedure: Under Article I, section 11 and Article VII (Amended), section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, it is proper for the trial court to empanel a six-person jury for a defendant’s misdemeanor case, and that jury’s verdict is valid. (10-09-2013)
Grimm v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison SupervisionParole and Post-Prison Supervision: When an inmate, whose dangerousness is based on a disability, is found to be a danger to the community, 42 USC §§ 12101-12213, the Americans with Disabilities Act and ORS 659A.142 will not limit the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision's ability to defer the inmates release.(09-25-2013)
State v. Gonzalez-ValenzuelaCriminal Law: Under ORS 163.575(1)(b), when a person in possession of controlled substances knowingly permits minors to remain in a place where unlawful activity involving controlled substances is maintained that person may be convicted of endangering the welfare of a minor. (08-21-2013)
State v. WellsAppellate Procedure: A court may exercise its discretion to review for plain error to apply the law as it exists at the time an appeal is decided. (08-07-2013)
State v. FredinburgCriminal Procedure: When a party does not show sufficient cause to support a motion to postpone trial and a motion for self-representation would have been disruptive to the orderly conduct of the trial, those motions will be denied. (07-10-2013)
Mendoza v. Liberty Northwest Insurance CorporationWorkers Compensation: An employee who is injured while performing a duty of employment, even a duty not required and off-premises, is in the course of employment if it benefits and is permitted by the employer. (06-12-2013)
Schutz v. La Costita III, Inc. Criminal Procedure: ORS 471.565(1) bars all claims against licensed server(s) of alcohol that are brought by a patron who voluntarily consumes the alcohol served. (05-15-2013)
State v. HernandezEvidence: The State need only present sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could draw an inference that a charged crime had occurred. (04-24-2013)