Willamette Law Online

(29 summaries)

Nicholas Naumes

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. KleinEvidence: Under ORS 133.721 an aggrieved person who has standing to move to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a body-wire is a party to an intercepted communication or a person against whom the interception was directed.(08-02-2012)
Weber Coastal Bells Limited Partners v. MetroLand Use: Language in a land use final order on remand which contradicts the LUBA holding is surplusage and without legal effect. A party automatically has standing before the Supreme Court by virtue of participation in LUBA hearings.(06-28-2012)
State v. CabanillaCriminal Law: Under ORS 813.100, the statute is satisfied if the officer informs the driver of the rights and consequences of refusing a breath or blood test in English, even if he is primarily a Spanish speaker.(03-01-2012)
A.G. v. GuitronCivil Procedure: Civil Procedure: ORCP 44C requires plaintiffs to produce all written reports of any examinations relating to the injuries of the claim upon request by defendant, regardless of whether their treating physician, or an expert retained solely for litigation performs the examination.(12-30-2011)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Dexter Lost Valley Community Assn. v. Lane CountyLand Use: ORS 197.830(13)(b) prohibits a state or local government from withdrawing a decision after the date set for filing the record.(03-20-2013)
State v. PreuittEvidence: An expert witness may not testify as to the credibility of another witness. An expert may testify to matters that would assist a jury in reaching a conclusion, but may not include her own conclusions as to the witness' truthfulness.(02-13-2013)
State v. MacielCriminal Procedure: An officer has reasonable suspicion to stop a person when the officer subjectively believes the person has committed a crime and that belief is objectively reasonable in the totality of the circumstances. Reasonable suspicion must be based on specific articulable facts of the crime suspected to be objectively reasonable.(01-16-2013)
State v. NaudainCriminal Procedure: A trial court is not permitted to comment on the evidence, and a court impermissibly comments on evidence when it instructs the jury how evidence relates to a particular legal issue.(12-12-2012)
State v. RennellsCriminal Procedure: Under the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement, officers may enter an area when they have articulable facts indicating a person is threatened with serious physical injury or harm.(11-21-2012)
State v. WoodEvidence: Under OEC 803(18) hearsay concerning sexual abuse may be admitted when the prosecution gives pretrial notice of the statement. The proponent must identify the statement, the substance of the statement, and the means by which the statement will be introduced.(10-24-2012)
Zabriskie v. LowengartCivil Procedure: Under ORS 12.110(4), the statute of limitations period begins to run when a plaintiff should have discovered an injury that arose from the allegedly negligent medical care.(09-26-2012)
Johnson v. Sunriver Resort Limited PartnershipCivil Procedure: A party's neglect to file a timely response to a complaint may be excusable when reasonable steps were taken to ensure that a response would be filed.(09-12-2012)
Turner and MullerFamily Law: When a parenting plan constitutes a de facto change in custody, absent a motion for change of custody, the Court can exercise its discretion to review that issue de novo and establish a compliant parenting plan.(08-15-2012)
Niday v. GMAC Mortgage, LLCProperty Law: The beneficiary of a trust deed is the party to whom the obligation is owed. Under ORS 86.735 any assignment of a beneficial interest in a trust deed must be recorded in the county mortgage records.(07-18-2012)
Lamka v. KeyBankCivil Procedure: Under ORCP 23A and ORCP 21A, a plaintiff may amend a pleading once as matter of right before a responsive pleading is served, even if the trial court has dismissed the complaint.(06-20-2012)
Muzzy v. UttamchandaniProperty Law: An unrecorded deed is void as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value unless the purchaser can prove that he bought in good faith, for valuable consideration, and filed first for record.(05-31-2012)
Hunt v. City of EugeneCivil Procedure: ORCP 54(B) provides that nothing shall prevent the court from dismissing an action for want of prosecution notwithstanding the requirement that the clerk shall notify the parties that the case has been inactive for more than a year. Under ORS 20.105, the city is not entitled to attorney fees if the arguments brought against it were plausible.(04-25-2012)
K. R. v. ErazoCivil Stalking Protective Order: For a stalking protective order, ORS 30.866 requires two or more contacts that will cause objectively reasonable fear and, where the contact is speech, it must be a threat that invokes imminent fear.(03-14-2012)
State v. RubioSentencing: When a sentencing court commits an error the Court of Appeals must remand the entire case for resentencing if there are options which the sentencing court may adopt. Where defendant's theory does not focus on an issue that matter is collateral, and while relevant, its probative value may be substantially outweighed by risk of misleading the jury.(02-15-2012)
Tonquin Holdings, LLC v. Clackamas CountyLand Use: Zoning ordinance 1203.01 prohibits approval of a conditional use that substantially limits primary uses of adjacent property. Where both general and special standards are applicable both shall apply, but where the two standards conflict the special standards shall control.(01-25-2012)
Hemingway and MauerFamily Abuse Prevention Act: In exercising its discretion, the trial court has the authority to control the presentation of evidence and the examination of witnesses. The exercise of authority is reasonable only if it is fundamentally fair and allows opportunities for a reasonably complete presentation of evidence and argument.(01-05-2012)
State v. L.D.Civil Commitment: To commit a person involuntarily the state must show the person’s mental disorder causes them to behave in a manner that is likely to result in actual serious physical harm to them in the near future.(12-29-2011)
D.T. v. Department of Human ServicesAdministrative Law: A person is unable to consent to significant medical procedures if they are unable to reasonably comprehend the risks and benefits of the proposed procedure. In administering significant procedures without consent, a hospital must consider all other less intrusive procedures if the protesting patient affirmatively raises an alternative procedure.(12-21-2011)
Fisher v. WalkerProperty Law: To determine an easement’s purpose, the court looks to the wording of the document within the context of the document. An instrument creating an easement that does not convey title to the property, but only subjects it to the uses of the easement, is not a conveyable interest in land.(11-16-2011)
Siegert v. Crook CountyLand Use: The standard of review for a zoning ordinance is limited to whether the county’s determination is plausible. If the local government plausibly interprets its own regulations that interpretation must be affirmed, unless it is inconsistent with all of the express language or inconsistent with the policies underlying the regulation.(11-09-2011)
State v. LandrethCriminal Procedure: Good cause to extend the deadline for the imposition of a supplemental judgment exists when the motion is filed within the time period, and further investigation to establish the specific amount of restitution is required.(11-02-2011)
State v. NeffCriminal Law: Where two parties are recording the same conversation, when one party informs the other of the recording, it is sufficient to satisfy the notice requirement that the conversation is being obtained.(10-26-2011)
State v. ColemanAppellate Procedure: An order denying a motion to correct an amended judgment under ORS 183.083 is not appealable where the appealed issue is not defined as appealable.(10-19-2011)
State v. VidalEvidence: An expert diagnosis of child sexual abuse is not admissible as evidence in the absence of other physical evidence of abuse.(09-21-2011)