Willamette Law Online

(31 summaries)

Jayme Mori

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Gearheart, et al. v. Public Utility Comm’n of Oregon, et al. Administrative Law: The Public Utility Commission of Oregon had the authority on remand to reexamine previous rates, order a refund to post-2000 ratepayers, and allow PGE to recover interest on the facility investment. (10-02-2014)
State v. SerranoCriminal Law: Defendant's failure to preserve an argument regarding the sufficiency of evidence will lead to an affirmation of conviction. Also, where defendant does not object to testimony in a penalty-phase hearing and that testimony would not deny defendant a fair penalty-phase hearing, the trial court is not obligated to strike that testimony. (04-17-2014)
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
Kroetch v. Employment Dept.Administrative Law: Where the Employment Appeals Board decision fails to explain a credibility determination for whether there is good cause for a late filing it is without substantial reason. (12-10-2014)
Saunders v. Nooth Post-Conviction Relief: Where a defense attorney in a post-conviction relief appeal does not renew a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence at trial, the attorney does not fail to provide adequate assistance of counsel. (11-13-2014)
Hamilton v. Pacific Skyline, Inc. Workers Compensation: Under ORS 656.262(11)(a), a claimant is entitled to penalties and attorney fees where a Board’s determination is not supported by substantial reason. (10-29-2014)
State v. McCrary Criminal Procedure: An in-trial Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test is an unlawful search without a warrant or exception to the warrant requirement because Nystagmus is not an observation made or commonly understood by the public.(10-22-2014)
State v. ReinekeCriminal Procedure: Where the prosecution impermissibly references a defendant’s invocation of his right to remain silent, the defendant’s right to a fair trial is prejudiced. (10-15-2014)
State v. WrightCriminal Procedure: Under State v. Backstrand, and other cases, briefly holding a person’s identification card does not necessarily mean that a person is stopped; rather, a stop can take place when a request for identification is done in conjunction with other police conduct.(09-17-2014)
State v. Worthington Criminal Procedure: Reasonable suspicion to make a stop must be supported by the totality of the circumstances and the police officer’s application of his experience to interpret those circumstances.(09-10-2014)
Kleinsasser and Lopes Family Law: Pursuant to ORS 109.119, the Court "shall grant custody" to a third party who establishes a child-parent relationship, "if to do so is in the best interest of the child."(08-27-2014)
State v. CampbellCriminal Procedure: Pursuant to ORS 161.067(3), where the there is not sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that there is no pause for reflection “to afford the defendant an opportunity to renounce the criminal intent,” the conduct should reflect a single conviction. (08-20-2014)
City of Portland v. Huffman Civil Procedure: The correct time to assert the doctrine of issue preclusion is before the issue is relitigated, since all information is known before the trial court.(07-16-2014)
State v. Richards Evidence: Where erroneously excluded evidence relates to the central factual issue, rather than a tangential issue, and thereby is more likely to effect the trier of fact’s determination, the evidentiary error is not harmless.(05-29-2014)
Bova v. City of MedfordAttorney Fees: Where a trial court ruling awards a plaintiff costs and attorney fees with respect to contempt and age discrimination claims, and the Court of Appeals affirms one of those claims and reverses the other, the award of costs and attorney’s fees should also be reversed with respect to the claim that is reversed. (05-21-2014)
Dunmire v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision Appellate Procedure: Where a petitioner shows collateral consequences that stem from a board’s decision to impose incarceration based on legally incorrect premises the petition for judicial review is moot. (05-07-2014)
State v. WigginsCriminal Procedure: If a dog sniff produces incriminating evidence, that would not have happened but for an unlawful search, it is the unattenuated product of that illegality and should be suppressed. (04-23-2014)
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)