Willamette Law Online

(53 summaries)

Samantha Stocklein

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. Walker Criminal Law: Casual and informal associations of individuals, as well as organizations with formal structures, can constitute an "enterprise" within the meaning of ORS 166.715(2); the key is whether the association or entity is engaged in ongoing, coordinated criminal activity and undertakes a purposeful venture, undertaking, or activity through a pattern of criminal activity. (08-21-2014)
Johnson v. PremoCivil Procedure: Nothing in the Church opinion may be understood to state an exception to the requirement of ORS 9.320 that represented parties ordinarily must appear through counsel; Church says that if a post-conviction attorney fails to assert a ground for relief, the petitioner must bring that fact to the attention of the court to avoid the effect of ORS 138.550(3). (08-14-2014)
J.A.H. v. HeikkilaAppellate Procedure: ORCP 9B specifies how an appellant must serve a party when that party is represented; the appellant must serve the party's attorney. (08-07-2014)
State v. Nix Criminal Law: "Victim" as used in ORS 161.067, Oregon's "anti-merger" statute, is determined by reference to the underlying substantive statute that is violated. (08-07-2014)
State v. HickmanCriminal Procedure: A first identification of defendant occurring in the courtroom falls under the OEC 403 inquiry described in Lawson/James. (07-10-2014)
In re Sione Professional Responsibility: In determining whether reciprocal discipline is appropriate, the Court must determine whether the misconduct in the state the discipline was imposed constitutes misconduct under the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct and, if so, what sanction is appropriate for such misconduct. (06-12-2014)
Hall v. State of OregonLand Use: Government regulation of the use of property or planning for the eventual taking of property for use that reduces the property's value generally does not result in a de facto taking; however, there are two generally recognized exceptions to that general rule: (1) when a regulation or planning action deprives the owner of all economically viable use of the property, or (2) a physical government occupation or invasion of property rights substantially has interfered with the owner's use and enjoyment of the property. (05-30-2014)
State v. A.J.C. Criminal Procedure: The school safety exception applies where the school has "reasonable suspicion that there w[ere] imminent health or safety threats or risk to the students [of] the school"; an imminent safety threat needs to be supported by specific and articulable facts but is accompanied by additional considerations for this exception including the confined close-quarters of a school campus and the heightened standard of care to students and adults in the environment.(05-30-2014)
State v. Bowen Post-Conviction Relief: Defendant should have sought reconsideration of the disposition of the Supreme Court rather than waiting for the order to be issued to the trial court and then assigning error to the trial court's compliance with those terms. (05-30-2014)
Chase and ChaseFamily Law: After an initial judgment is entered requiring payment of child support in future recurring installments, interest on unpaid installments is postjudgment, not prejudgment interest, and is governed by paragraph (2)(b), not paragraph (2)(c), of ORS 82.010. (02-13-2014)
State v. PipkinCriminal Procedure: When determining whether a jury concurrence is required, a court must first determine the legislature's intent in enacting the criminal statute. If the legislature intended two ways of proving a single element, jury concurrence is not required, so long as Article I, section 11 of the constitution is not violated.(12-12-2013)
State v. BenoitCriminal Procedure: The Oregon Constitution does not support the state transforming what begins as a criminal proceeding into a noncriminal proceeding without the defendant's consent.(10-03-2013)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Hopper v. SAIFWorkers Compensation: For a claimant to prevail after denial on a claim for failure to cooperate, the claimant must prove one of three things: (1) that claimant, in fact, "fully and completely cooperated with the investigation"; (2) that claimant "failed to cooperate for reasons beyond the [claimant's] control"; or (3) that SAIF's "investigative demands were unreasonable"; to satisfy number (2), the claimant must prove that any failure to cooperate was because of--in other words, causally connected to--reasons beyond the worker's control.(09-10-2014)
State v. McKarge Criminal Law: Under ORS 135.230(4)(c), the portion of the definition of "family or household members" that refers to "persons related by * * * marriage," is limited to "[a]dult persons related by * * * marriage" and does not apply to a minor child. (09-10-2014)
State v. MuhammadCriminal Law: A defendant cannot be required to pay restitution for pecuniary damages arising out of criminal activity for which s/he was not convicted or which he did not admit having committed. (09-10-2014)
Perry v. HernandezLandlord Tenant: As a general matter, when a party prevails on a claim for which attorney fees are authorized and a claim for which they are not, the trial court must apportion the fees incurred for each claim; however, there is an exception to that rule when the claims involve common issues: that exception is based on the premise that attorney fees should not be subject to apportionment when the party entitled to fees would have incurred roughly the same amount of fees, irrespective of the additional claim or claims. (08-20-2014)
State v. BrownAppellate Procedure: Arguments that a defendant intends to raise on appeal must be preserved at the trial level. (08-13-2014)
State v. BurciagaCriminal Law: Request for reconsideration in light of factual errors made in Court's previous opinion. (08-06-2014)
State v. Frier Criminal Law: A person who has been ordered to serve time in county jail as a condition of probation has been sentenced to a "term of imprisonment" for purposes of ORS 813.010(6)(c). Accordingly, that person would not be subject to the mandatory minimum $2,000 fine set forth in that statutory subsection; however, if the court wished to exercise its discretion under ORS 161.635(1)(a) in choosing to impose a fine not exceeding $6,250 for a Class A misdemeanor, it could do so. (08-06-2014)
State v. Ramirez-Hernandez Criminal Procedure: The state bears the burden of proving that a defendant "is or may be able to pay" attorney fees; mere speculation as to a defendant's ability to pay is insufficient. (07-23-2014)
State v. Acuna Criminal Procedure: A stop is legal if the officer, under the circumstances, has reason to believe suspect has engaged in unlawful activity; all circumstances are considered to determine whether the encounter with police has risen to the level of "compelling" and thus required the reading of Miranda rights.(07-02-2014)
State v. E. D.Civil Commitment: Under ORS 426.005(1)(e), in order to justify an involuntary civil commitment, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a person has a mental disorder and that, because of that disorder, the person is a danger to self, a danger to others, or unable to meet his basic needs.(07-02-2014)
State v. Zamora-Martinez Criminal Procedure: The test to determine whether a seizure has occurred "is an objective one: Would a reasonable person believe that a law enforcement officer intentionally and significantly restricted, interfered with, or otherwise deprived the individual of his or her liberty or freedom of movement."(07-02-2014)
State v. GerenCriminal Procedure: An officer's reading of the statutory rights and consequences of refusing to submit to blood, breath, or urine testing does not render a defendant's consent to such testing involuntary; telling a defendant that his refusal may be used against him is not unconstitutional. (06-25-2014)
Camacho v. SAIFWorkers Compensation: A claimant's statements in medical reports constitute prima facie evidence under ORS 656.310(2) if those statements were for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment; otherwise, a claimant's statements in medical reports are hearsay to which the board may afford whatever weight it deems appropriate under the circumstances. Additionally, the agency shall seek the services of an interpreter whenever one is necessary to perform an adjudicative function.(06-18-2014)
State v. Lambert Criminal Procedure: The administrative seizure exception applies when the seizure is "specifically authorized by law," and suspicions of criminal activity "play no part" in the officer's decision to seize the property; a tent falls within the burglary statute if the tent was modified for use in a business.(06-18-2014)
Benson and Benson Property Law: When property is purchased with one spouse's pre-marital assets, the court's task is to determine each spouse's contribution to the acquisition of the house; to assess whether, in light of those contributions, the presumption of equal contribution has been rebutted; and, if so, to evaluate the just and proper distribution of the assets in the light of factors considered by the court. (06-11-2014)
State v. Simkins Criminal Law: Offense surcharge imposed on crimes not falling under the time frame of the statute constitutes error. (06-11-2014)
State v. CampbellCriminal Procedure: Whether a police-citizen interaction rises beyond a mere encounter to the level of a seizure under Article I, section 9, depends on whether a reasonable person would believe that an officer has intentionally and significantly restricted, interfered with, or otherwise deprived a citizen of his or her liberty or freedom of movement; for police to seize an individual under Article I, section 9, an individual must have an objectively reasonable perception that police are exercising coercive authority; asking for identification is not enough to show coercive authority.(05-29-2014)
Friends of the Hood River Waterfront v. City of Hood RiverLand Use: ORS 197.175(2) represents a mandatory requirement to identify the 100-year floodplains in connection with a project on a site where the floodplains have not yet been identified; however, nothing in the text or context of that provision expressly requires that identification to take the form of a map prepared by the applicant. (05-21-2014)
Fuentes v. TillettCivil Law: Under ORS 125.480, intermediate accounting orders are final only as to the conservator's liability with respect to matters that were actually presented to, and considered by, the probate court when it approved the intermediate accountings. (05-21-2014)
Brown v. SAIFWorkers Compensation: The correct test in determining a combined condition claim is whether claimant's work-related injury incident is the major contributing cause of the combined condition.(05-07-2014)
Bazzaz v. HoweEvidence: Evidence that may be "relevant and essential" to a causation based defense, which requires a finding of fact that cannot have been made by a judge on summary judgment, is admissible, so long as the jury is not making a determination on the causation issue. (04-30-2014)
State ex rel Gary Schrodt v. Jackson CountyLand Use: The text and context of ORS 215.402(2) reflect the legislature intended the phrase "application for discretionary approval of a proposed development of land" to include requests for discretionary approval of a proposed use of land. (04-23-2014)
State v. BarajasCriminal Procedure: Appellate tag lines must be read in the context of the opinion as a whole. (04-23-2014)
State v. DoyleCriminal Procedure: To determine whether an initial violation of Miranda is cured before the start of a second interview, the court should consider the time between the first and second interview, whether Miranda rights were read before the second interview, and whether those rights were understood and intelligibly waived prior to the second interview. (04-23-2014)
State v. AndrewsEvidence: In order to preserve an assignment of error, Defendant must argue at trial that testimony must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. (04-02-2014)
Clackamas River Water v. HollowayCivil Law: Under ORS 31.150(1)(3), Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute, a defendant's successful special motion to strike canooot then "proceed to trial." (03-26-2014)
Fleming v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison SupervisionAdministrative Law: Petitioner must first raise issues on administrative review in order for them to subsequently be considered on judicial review. (03-19-2014)
State v. Lopez Criminal Law: Under ORS 137.106, restitution must be imposed within 90 days after sentencing or otherwise extended by the court for good cause and Defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard before the court on the imposition, amount, or distribution of the restitution. (03-05-2014)
Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council v. AlbertWorkers Compensation: The Worker's Compensation Board is required to use evidence on the record to determine whether a claimant has been released to his post-injury job, such as medical records, claimant's own description of work history, employer's Regular Duty Job analysis, and evidence about claimant's post injury capacity. (01-23-2014)
State v. MazzolaCriminal Procedure: Under Article I, section 9, an officer can conduct field sobriety tests (FSTs) if the tests are justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances. (12-26-2013)
State v. Pipkin Tax Law: A one time sale of intangible assets is excluded from the definition of "sales" under ORS 314.665(6)(a) and is not included in that definition under the "unless" clause of that statute. (12-12-2013)
State v. Wright Criminal Procedure: A fact finder may logically infer, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a single transaction was the result of a continued scheme of defraudment based on previous transactions of similar nature. (11-20-2013)
State v. Flores Criminal Law: Under ORS 161.067, the court must merge two convictions when a defendant's acts constitute the same conduct or criminal episode, violate two or more statutory provisions, and all elements of one offense are necessarily included in the commission of the other offense.(10-30-2013)
Minihan v. Stiglich Property Law: An intentional trespass action may properly result in compensatory and punitive damages for both loss of use and emotional distress even if emotional distress is not specifically alleged.(10-09-2013)
State v. Gruver Criminal Law: Leaving the supervision of an unarmed civilian not on the premises of a correctional facility is not escape in the second or third degree and instead constitutes unauthorized departure under ORS 162.175. (09-18-2013)
Dam v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision Criminal Procedure: Erred psychological report leading to denial of parole requires new psychological evaluation pursuant to ORS 144.226 and ORS 144.228.(08-14-2013)
Multnomah County Corrections v. Multnomah CountyEmployment Law: Requirement of a minimum of 40 hours training for strike-prohibited corrections employees cannot be reasonably understood to relate to a matter of on-the-job employee safety under ORS 243.650. (07-31-2013)
Shelter Products v. Steelwood Construction Contract Law: When a contract is terminated "for convenience" and not "for cause," a general contractor cannot deduct their damages from the amount awarded for work completed by a subcontractor. (07-03-2013)
State v. Meza-GarciaCriminal Procedure: When an officer asks for consent to search following an illegal stop, evidence resulting from the search can be found admissible if the consent is "sufficiently attenuated" from the initial illegal stop. (05-30-2013)
State of Oregon v. Marvin OpitzCriminal Law: For a conviction of kidnapping the first degree, the defendant must move the victim to a "qualitatively different" location. (05-15-2013)
State v. CollinsCriminal Procedure: Courts now should utilize the Lawson/James test for determining the admissibility of in court and out of court identifications. (04-17-2013)