Willamette Law Online

(11 summaries)

Sasha Petrova

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. AndersonCriminal Procedure: By itself, a request for identification made by an officer in the course of a lawful encounter with a citizen is not a seizure. A seizure occurs if an officer physically restrains a citizen’s liberty in a significant way, or engages in a “show of authority” that reasonably conveys a significant restriction on a person’s freedom to terminate the encounter.(11-21-2013)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Hettle v. Construction Contractors BoardContract Law: Under ORS 701.140, “improper work” can be characterized as work not suited to the circumstances under which it was performed. To recover economic damages in negligence, the “economic loss” doctrine requires the existence of a heightened standard of care, such as one arising out of special relationship or statute. (12-18-2013)
Pollock and PollockFamily Law: It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to disregard the terms of a marital settlement agreement due to allegedly inequitable conduct by one of the parties, where the parties considered and structured the agreement around such conduct. Additionally, a party that sings a marital settlement agreement purporting to resolve all claims between the parties waives its right to continue discovery under ORS 107.105(1)(f). (10-30-2013)
O'Neil v. MartinCivil Procedure: Personal jurisdiction is established if a person purposefully directs his activities at a given state, the action “arises out of” the activities directed at the state, and the person can reasonably foresee being haled into the courts of that state. Under ORCP 23 A, a plaintiff has an opportunity to amend his complaint once before the trial court can dismiss it with prejudice. (10-09-2013)
State v. HolidayCriminal Procedure: A search occurs when officers interfere with a person’s protected privacy interest. To argue “inevitable discovery,” police must prove that they would have obtained disputed evidence through lawful procedures. (09-25-2013)
Berg v. NoothPost-Conviction Relief: An attorney’s failure to object to vouching testimony by expert witnesses results in prejudice to the defendant, and entitles the defendant to a new trial.(08-21-2013)
Greene v. Homesales, Inc. Civil Procedure: The doctrine of “law of the case” precludes re-litigation of issues that have been decided at earlier stages of the same case. (08-07-2013)
Dept. of Human Services v. R.D.Juvenile Law: To change a plan from reunification to adoption at a permanency hearing, DHS has the burden of proving that (1) DHS made reasonable efforts to make it possible for the child to return home safely, and (2) that the parent had not made sufficient progress for that to occur. (07-10-2013)
State v. DierksCriminal Procedure: An individual is subject to a stop requiring reasonable suspicion when an officer asks questions about criminal activity, acquires information about the individual’s identity, and returns to his patrol car with that information.(06-12-2013)
State v. M.L.R. Civil Commitment: Failure to advise an allegedly mentally ill person of their rights under ORS 426.100(1) regarding a commitment hearing constitutes plain error requiring reversal.(05-15-2013)
State v. MontgomeryAppellate Procedure: An argument on appeal that is qualitatively different from the one presented at trial is not preserved for review. A denial for a motion of acquittal can be based on circumstantial evidence that allows a rational trier of fact to find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (04-17-2013)