Willamette Law Online

(15 summaries)

Rachel Staines

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. MooreAppellate Procedure: When the Court of Appeals does not consider all alternative bases for affirmance, the Supreme Court can remand the case back to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration.(02-27-2014)
State v. SupanchickEvidence: The principle of forfeiture by wrongdoing ensures that a defendant cannot manipulate the availability of witnesses. A defendant gives up his right to confront evidence from a witness when defendant has made that witness unavailable by wrongdoing.(02-13-2014)
State v. HighleyCriminal Procedure: An officer's mere request for and verification of identification is not a seizure. The encounter may become a seizure only when the manner and content of police questions, cause a reasonable person to conclude that the police are exercising their authority to coercively detain the citizen.(11-21-2013)
Buehler v. RosenblumBallot Titles: A ballot title must comply with ORS 250.035(2)(a) and reasonably identify the subject matter, which means that it would give effect to the actual major effect(s) if the measure was put into law. Additionally, a summary of the ballot title, under ORS 250.035(2)(d,) must be a concise and impartial statement of not more than 125 words that summarizes the state measure and its major effect. (10-03-2013)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Flaig v. EmertTrusts and Estates: ORS 115.145 and ORS 115.165 do not authorize the summary determination of counterclaims by a personal representative.(01-23-2014)
SAIF v. WalkerWorkers Compensation: In a Workers' Compensation action, the reviewing Court will not reweigh the evidence or choose sides among members of the board who initially reviewed the claim. A reversal of the board's decision will only occur when the credible evidence apparently weighs overwhelmingly in favor of one finding and the board finds the other without giving a persuasive explanation. (12-26-2013)
State v. LangfordCriminal Procedure: When a defendant is sentenced to and agrees to community service, then that defendant is not also subject to a work crew unless specified by the judgment. The standard of review is the same as that of reviewing a judgment of acquittal. (12-18-2013)
Hamlin v. Wilderville Cemetery AssociationCivil Procedure: Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. There is no genuine issue of material fact if, based on the summary judgment record no objectively reasonable juror could return a verdict for the adverse party on the matter that is the subject of the motion for summary judgment.(10-30-2013)
State v. CadgerCriminal Law: A defendant cannot be convicted of escape from a correctional facility under ORS 162.155 when he or she is authorized to depart from the jail and is not under the supervision of a law enforcement official when he or she absconds from a work site. (10-16-2013)
State v. StradleyCriminal Law: More than one person can be found guilty of “frequenting” in violation of ORS 167.222(1) when there are joint owners or occupiers in a home as long as they knowingly possess the controlled substance. Having another person jointly occupying the home without reasonably knowing of the controlled substance is not enough evidence to convict the Defendant of “frequenting” within the meaning of the statute. (08-14-2013)
State v. LewisSentencing: Per OAR 213-012-0040(2), when a defendant is serving multiple terms of probationary supervision and commits one probation violation, the court can revoke and impose only concurrent sentences and not consecutive sentences.(07-24-2013)
State v. ThompsonCriminal Procedure: Under Article I, section 42 of the Oregon Constitution, a victim who has been economically harmed has a right to restitution even after Defendant is sentenced. (06-26-2013)
State v. StubbsEvidence: Under ORCP 59 E, a jury is allowed to consider all evidence present on the record and a trial court is not allowed to instruct the jury as to matters of fact or comment on the evidence.(05-30-2013)
State v. PalomoCriminal Law: A person will be convicted of prostitution under ORS 167.007 when sexual conduct is exchanged for something of economic value and the transaction is commercial in character.(05-08-2013)
State v. MatherCriminal Law: Under ORS 162.205, a person is considered to be released from a “correctional facility” when the release agreement from the pretrial services office is signed.(04-17-2013)