Willamette Law Online

(21 summaries)

Michael Punch

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Niday v. GMAC Mortgage, LLCConsumer Credit: For the purposes of the Oregon Deed Trust Act (ODTA), a beneficiary on a trust deed is the party that is entitled to repayment of the note. A party named as beneficiary, but lacking that entitlement, has no right to appoint a successor trustee after sale of the promissory note.(06-06-2013)
Synectic Ventures I, LLC v. EVI Corp.Corporations: A managing member of a Limited Liability Company (LLC) may not enter into agreements in which there exists a personal conflict of interest unless the operating agreement explicitly allows him or her to enter into such agreements. If the managing member does enter into an agreement with a conflict of interest, there is a breach of the duty of loyalty and the LLC is not bound by the agreement as the managing member no longer had the authority to enter into it.(12-20-2012)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. Prieto-RubioCriminal Law: Police must notify a Defendant's attorney before interviewing him or her about separate but factually related offenses when he or she has obtained representation in one of the cases.(04-02-2014)
Mesta v. FrankePost-Conviction Relief: The Oregon Constitution does not require appellate counsel to put forth every possible argument in the small chance a subsequent change in law will make the argument effective at a later date.(03-26-2014)
Sherwood Park Business Center, LLC. v. TaggartCorporations: If a trial court declares a member's expulsion from an LLC and the remaining members exercise their option to purchase the expelled member's share, the interest owed for the purchase begins to accrue on the date the trial court enters its judgment.(03-19-2014)
Brand Energy Services, LLC v. OR-OSHAWorkers Compensation: OR-OSHA rule 29 CFR section 1926.451(g)(1), requiring employees working on scaffolds to be protected by fall-protection systems, does not apply to employees dismantling a scaffold. However, 29 CFR section 1926.451(g)(2) does apply.(02-20-2014)
Howe v. GreenleafProperty Law: A statutory presumption exists that parcels of land which have a road as a boundary include up to the center line of the road unless the title to the road is clearly held by another party.(01-29-2014)
Bridgeview Vineyards, Inc. v. State Land BoardAdministrative Law: If parties dispute material facts essential to an agency's order, the circuit court must allow a petitioner to supplement the administrative record through an evidentiary hearing.(08-28-2013)
White v. VogtCivil Procedure: A court does not have writ of review jurisdiction over decisions that are purely ministerial in nature.(08-14-2013)
Dept. of Human Services v. N.P.Juvenile Law: When reviewing a juvenile court's decision under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), the court: (1) assumes the juvenile court's findings of historical fact are correct if there is any evidence in the record to support them; (2) assumes that, if the juvenile court is silent on an issue of material fact, the issue is resolved in a manner consistent with the juvenile court's decision; (3) combines (1) and (2) along with non-speculative inferences to determine if ORS 419B.100(1)(c) was satisfied.(07-24-2013)
State v. TeitsworthEvidence: Evidence of uncharged misconduct that is introduced to show hostile motive toward the victim and is also probative of intent must pertain to a disputed issue and meet the Johns test.(06-26-2013)
Bell v. Tri-MetCivil Procedure: The two year statute of limitations on a tort action against a public body contained in ORS 30.275(9) supersedes the three year limitation on a survival action for personal injuries by a personal representative contained in ORS 30.075(1). (05-16-2013)
McPhillips Farm, Inc. v. Yamhill CountyLand Use: A Land Use Compatibility Statement is not a "land use decision" when it permits modification of a feature that is encompassed by a previous land use decision. Accordingly, the Land Use Board of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to review the Land Use Compatibility Statement.(04-24-2013)
Greer v. Ace Hardware Corp.Tort Law: In a claim against asbestos manufacturers, a plaintiff must proffer evidence showing both the specific products used and specific instances of their use.(04-10-2013)
State v. GerlachCriminal Law: The antimerger statute does not apply to multiple counts of kidnapping where the defendant continues to substantially interfere with the victim's liberty. The kidnapping continues as long as the seizure of the victim continues.(03-13-2013)
State v. PughCriminal Law: A person duplicates a sexually explicit image for purposes of ORS 163.684 when he or she downloads it on their personal computer. In addition, venue is proper in the county in which the download took place.(02-21-2013)
State v. WesleyCriminal Law: The doctrine of transferred intent exists for murder in Oregon despite it not having been codified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. Also, when determining the reliability of an eyewitness identification, it is proper for the Court to apply the test put forth by the Supreme Court in Lawson/James and analyze system and estimator variables.(01-30-2013)
Armenta v. PCC Structural, Inc.Workers Compensation: A misinterpretation and lack of consideration of a doctor's expert testimony is grounds for reversal of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board.(12-05-2012)
State v. HansenCriminal Procedure: A variance between an indictment and the statute under which Defendant was charged, leads to an acquittal where Defendant has been prejudiced by the discrepancy.(11-07-2012)
State v. KnappCriminal Procedure: An unlawful search has been conducted during a traffic stop when a police officer ceases processing the infraction and delays the stop to perform a search. Evidence found during the unlawful search can be suppressed by a passenger of the vehicle who was unlawfully detained, provided a factual nexus can be shown between the unlawful search and the finding of the evidence.(10-24-2012)
State v. TildenAppellate Procedure: The Court of Appeals may review for plain error, despite the fact that the defendant did not make an explicit request for review for plain error, when the requirements in ORAP 5.45 are met in the brief(10-03-2012)