Willamette Law Online

(28 summaries)

Chelsea Payment

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. CampbellCriminal Procedure: When a defendant drives unlawfully while simultaneously possessing illegal contraband, there is only one “criminal episode” and joinder of the charges is permitted.(10-17-2013)
State v. Algeo Constitutional Law: A crime victim's ability to petition the Oregon Supreme Court for alleged constitutional violations does not extend to alleged statutory violations. Additionally, Article I, section 42(1)(d), does not confer upon a victim the right to receive “restitution” in the full amount of economic damages as that term is defined by ORS 137.106.(10-03-2013)
In Re Peter CariniProfessional Responsibility: Violation of RPC 8.4(a)(4) occurs if the Bar proves the attorney's conduct did or could have had a prejudicial effect on the administration of justice. Prejudice to administration of justice may arise from several acts that cause some harm or a single act that causes substantial harm to the administration of justice.(08-15-2013)
State v. MacBaleEvidence: In OEC 412(4) hearings to determine the admissibility of evidence of a sex crime victim's past sexual behavior, excluding the public is permissible under both the Oregon and United States Constitutions.(07-25-2013)
State v. NewmanCriminal Law: ORS 161.095(1) requires proof that the driving element of DUII is a voluntary act for criminal liability to attach. (05-31-2013)
Lindell v. KaluginCivil Procedure: Under ORCP 44A, the burden to establish good cause supporting a limitation or condition imposed on discovery is on the party requesting the limitation or condition. In a mandamus proceeding, the Court is limited to reviewing the trial court's decision for clear error.(03-07-2013)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Davis v. F.W. Financial Services, Inc.Contract Law: In the event that a debtor has unresolvable financial problems, a secured party has not waived its priority by allowing the debtor to attempt to cure default.(12-26-2013)
Montara Owners Association v. La Noue Development, LLCContract Law: A jury instruction based on diminished value must only be given when evidence in the record allows a jury to reach a conclusion as to the diminished value, and an indemnity clause that offends ORS 30.140(1) because it requires a subcontractor to indemnify a contractor for the contractor's own negligence remains enforceable to the extent that it also requires the subcontractor to indemnify the contractor for the subcontractor's negligence.(12-04-2013)
State v. TuterSentencing: A drug treatment program that was mandated by a governmental actor in order to avoid adverse, judicially imposed consequences is sufficiently similar to a DUII diversion program and can preclude the participant from being awarded DUII diversion.(11-14-2013)
Yi v. City of PortlandWorkers Compensation: Claim preclusion applies where the facts that entitled the plaintiff to relief in the first action are the same in the second action, and are of such a nature that they could have been joined in the first action.(09-11-2013)
State v. GruhlkeCriminal Procedure: An information, like an indictment, must contain facts that sufficiently allege the charged offense is timely.(07-10-2013)
Dixon v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison SupervisionParole and Post-Prison Supervision: On substantial evidence review of a final order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision the Court must determine whether a reasonable person could make the findings the board made. The Board's final decision must be supported by substantial reasoning.(06-19-2013)
Balcom v. Knowledge Learning EnterprisesWorkers Compensation: Pursuant to ORCP 5.45(1), for consideration on judicial review an argument must be preserved in the lower court proceedings. To properly preserve an argument for consideration upon judicial review a party must provide the trial court with a specific explanation of her objection so as to ensure that the trial court can clearly identify the alleged error.(05-15-2013)
Silberman-Doney v. GarganCivil Procedure: Under ORCP 64B(1), to prevail on a motion for new trial due to an irregularity in the court's proceedings, the proponent must show the court deviated from an established rule or practice. (04-17-2013)
Miller v. City of PortlandAdministrative Law: Under the doctrine of exhaustion, for an aggrieved party to exhaust its administrative remedies, an administrative remedy must be available and it must adequately serve the aggrieved party's interests.(03-27-2013)
Underwood and MalloryAppellate Procedure: An error will not be reversed on appeal when the party alleging the error was instrumental in bringing it about.(02-13-2013)
Holbrook v. BlacketterPost-Conviction Relief: Under OEC 401, testimony of trial counsel is not irrelevant merely because the Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Bar trial panel. (01-16-2013)
Ewald and EwaldCivil Procedure: Claim preclusion prohibits relitigation of claims that could have been brought in the prior action from being brought in a separate action, but does not bar relitigation of claims raised in the same proceeding before the same court.(12-19-2012)
State v. OvendaleEvidence: Physical evidence giving rise to a "sexual abuse" diagnosis avoids the proscription in [italics]Southard[/italics] when its significance is of the sort that requires a complex factual determination by an expert rather than a lay person, it corroborates the type of abuse alleged, and the medical expert relies on the physical evidence in making the diagnosis.(12-05-2012)
State v. BradleyEvidence: OEC 803(18a)(b) intends to ensure an opposing party has reasonable time to prepare for trial in response to hearsay statements made by a victim by requiring notice to the opposing party no later than fifteen days before trial. At a minimum, the rule requires identification of the witness or the means that will be used to introduce the hearsay statement as well as the substance of the hearsay statement or how it will be introduced.(11-07-2012)
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Oregon v. FrazerWorkers Compensation: The mere fact of employer control over the injury location is insufficient to establish compensability of the injury. The Workers' Compensation Board is bound to apply the "going and coming" rule where an employee sustains an injury while traveling to or from work outside the course of employment. The injury will not be compensable unless the circumstances surrounding the injury fall within an exception to the rule.(10-17-2012)
State v. EllisCriminal Procedure: Whether a stop is lawful is based upon the officer's objectively reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. The possibility of alternative explanations for the defendant's conduct does not negate the reasonableness of the suspicion a crime has occurred.(09-26-2012)
State v. McIntyreEvidence: Evidence offered under OEC 404(3) of defendant's "other crimes, wrongs, or acts" must satisfy a five factor test to demonstrate the "other acts" are necessarily similar to the crime charged in order to be precluded from exclusion under OEC 404(4).(08-29-2012)
Whitsett v. Employment Dept.Employment Law: For an individual to be considered an independent contractor, he must meet each criteria listed under ORS 670.600(2) and three of five requirements listed under ORS 670.600(3). The burden is on the employer to prove the individual meets the relevant criteria to avoid being assessed an employee tax.(08-15-2012)
State vs. NixSentencing: For the purposes of merging convictions under ORS 161.067(2), and animal under ORS 167.325 is considered a victim.(08-01-2012)
Lopez v. MillsPost-Conviction Relief: The post-conviction court's award of specific performance is an adequate remedy when the prosecutor breaches his agreement to provide a recommendation if it provides the defendant the benefit of the agreement that led to the plea.(05-09-2012)
Peterson v. McCavicContract Law: To prevail on a fraud claim a plaintiff must show a representation; its falsity; its materiality; the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; his intent that it will be acted on by the listener; the listener's ignorance of its falsity; his reliance on its truth; his right to rely thereon; and his consequent and proximate injury. Plaintiff may prevail if he can show a reasonable inference of reliance based upon the evidence.(04-18-2012)
Sconce and SweetFamily Law: For a custody-modification, the party seeking the change in custody must prove that a substantial change in circumstances occurred since the last order relating to custody.(03-28-2012)