Willamette Law Online

(15 summaries)

Casey Murdock

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. J.C.L.Criminal Procedure: A warrantless seizure of a youth's computer and hard drive can be justified by the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. (03-26-2014)
State v. GruverCriminal Law: A court cannot convict a defendant on a charge for which the defendant was not indicted, unless the conviction is for an offense that is a lesser-included offense within the offense charged in the indictment.(02-12-2014)
Chou v. Farmers Ins. ExchangeAttorney Fees: Under ORS 20.310, parties must only include as costs those that were necessarily incurred in appearing for the appeal, exclusive of computerized legal research.(01-23-2014)
Department of Human Services v. J. M.Juvenile Law: The Department of Human Services has the burden of showing, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the conditions that were originally found to endanger the child persist to a degree that they currently pose a threat of either serious loss or injury that is reasonably likely to be realized.(12-26-2013)
Guirma v. O'BrienCivil Procedure: Under ORCP 21 A(9), a motion to dismiss on the ground that it was untimely under the statute of limitations for professional negligence cannot be granted if the jury could find that plaintiff did not know critical facts until less than two years before filing her action.(12-11-2013)
Young v. DavisCivil Law: Under Oregon's anti-SLAPP statutory scheme, as provided under ORS 31.150, a plaintiff need not show "likelihood of success of the merits," but instead, present "substantial evidence to support a prima facie case."(11-20-2013)
York v. PaakkonenCivil Procedure: Under ORS 31.555, the Dougherty Rule does not apply in a party's favor for partial satisfaction when that same party has objected to the use of a segregated verdict form, which allows for distinguishing between the various types of economic and non-economic damages at issue in the case.(10-30-2013)
Love v. Prime, Inc.Administrative Law: Plaintiff need not exhaust all administrative remedies when a party is not challenging an agency process or its outcome, nor does the primary jurisdiction doctrine apply when there is no basis for resolution of an administrative issue under the administrative construct, intended only to be applicable to an different stage of contest.(10-16-2013)
Daugherty v. SAIFWorkers Compensation: Under ORS 656.704, the Workers' Compensation Board is vested with exclusive authority to determine the causal relationship between a claimant's injury and medical services.(09-11-2013)
SPS Of Oregon, Inc. v. GDH, LLCEvidence: (1) Elements under wrongful initiation of a civil proceeding are not identical to those necessary for proving enhanced prevailing party fees under ORS 20.190, thus issue preclusion does not apply; (2) a party's reliance upon his or her attorney's advice, and the reasonableness of such reliance after a full and frank disclosure of pertinent facts, are all issues of fact to be determined by a jury; and (3) an attorney's malice requires a purpose other than recovery of damages, which is a question of law. (08-21-2013)
State v. RoquezEvidence: Under OEC 404(3), "other crimes" evidence cannot be used when the prior crime is insufficiently similar to the acts involved in the charged offenses, or when attempting to use one victim's state of mind to prove another's.(08-07-2013)
OR-OSHA v. Moore Excavation, Inc.Administrative Law: OR-OSHA has the burden of proving, in its prima facie case when a hazardous condition is presumed to exist, that employee exposure to the hazardous condition is "reasonably predictable."(07-17-2013)
Baker v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Co.Workers Compensation: New occupational disease claims, brought under ORS 656.802(2)(a), must be brought within one year of discovery of injury, due to ORS 656.807.(06-19-2013)
Walker v. StatePost-Conviction Relief: The requirements of preservation do not apply when a party has no practical opportunity to object to the purported error before entry of judgment. Plain error is therefore inapposite.(05-22-2013)
Wah Chang v. PUCAdministrative Law: Administrative agency retains broad authority under ORS 757.230 in determining the formula for ratemaking based upon the effect of special contracts on private customers and may rely upon investigative reports and filings by agency staff in so doing.(04-17-2013)