Willamette Law Online

(36 summaries)

James Tierney

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. Harrell/WilsonConstitutional Law: When determining jury waiver provisions in Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, the jury waiver provision is a substantive right and granting the waiver request is precedent upon analyzing judicial economy, defendant's rights, and speed against a waiver request. The prosecution's position may play a role in the decision as long as it relates to one of the three aforementioned factors; it may not be the sole factor.(02-28-2013)
Bresee Homes, Inc. v. Farmers Ins. ExchangeInsurance Law: An insurer may owe a duty to defend its insured and summary judgment is inappropriate when the date of breach is insufficient to determine whether the completed operations hazard exception applies.(12-31-2012)
State v. LeistikoAppellate Procedure: On a petition for reconsideration, the Supreme Court may decline to address an issue if the issue was not raised in a lower court.(11-08-2012)
State v. SarichEvidence: Under OEC 601, an inquiry regarding whether an individual is competent enough to testify involves gathering whether that person has the ability to perceive, recollect, and communicate in a worthwhile manner.(11-01-2012)
State v. BowenAppellate Procedure: Entry of a corrected judgment on remand does not trigger the alternative sentencing procedures provided in ORS 138.012(2)(a).(06-28-2012)
Greenwood Products v. Greenwood Forest ProductsAppellate Procedure: The Court held the Court of Appeals’ reversal incorrectly relied on the “no obligation” provision of the asset purchase agreement in question. That particular issue was not raised in the trial court and therefore was not preserved for appeal.(02-24-2012)
State v. Kurokawa-LasciakCriminal Procedure: The automobile exception to the warrant requirement defined in State v. Brown does not extend to parked, immobile, and unoccupied vehicles, absent exigent circumstances.(10-06-2011)
State v. RyanConstitutional Law: In order to challenge Oregon’s stalking protective order statute on free speech grounds, a defendant must first successfully challenge the underlying protective order.(09-09-2011)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. Lopez-CruzCriminal Law: An expert’s diagnosis of “abuse”, in the absence of physical evidence to corroborate that diagnosis, amounts to an impermissible comment on the credibility of the patient.(04-03-2013)
State v. BarajasCriminal Law: Under ORS 137.010(4), the court may revoke probation on a misdemeanor and impose any other sentence that could have been imposed at the original sentencing.(12-12-2012)
Sunset Presbyterian Church v. Brockamp & JaegerCivil Procedure: Under the accrual clause of a contract, the statute of limitations for claims tolls until the date of substantial completion, which is the architect's certification date or where the work is sufficiently complete.(12-12-2012)
Devin Oil Co. v. Morrow CountyLand Use: A county may adopt a limited use overlay zone with exceptions even if there are other options that could have satisfied the TPR.(08-29-2012)
State v. DoserCriminal Procedure: When determining whether a defendant invoked his right to remain silent, courts must view the statement using a totality of the circumstances test from a reasonable officer's perspective.(07-25-2012)
State v. OneillCriminal Procedure: Under the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement, police may impound vehicles that impede traffic, jeopardize public safety, and are subject to vandalism or theft.(07-25-2012)
State v. WorthingtonCriminal Law: Under ORS 163.200(1)(a), the material part of the charge is the failure to provide necessary and adequate medical care, not whether the actions led to death or another result. For a motion in arrest of judgment, the grounds for a challenge must be based on the face of the accusatory instrument without any inclusion of extrinsic facts.(07-11-2012)
Dept. of Human Services v. T.R.Juvenile Law: Changing a permanency plan from reunification to adoption requires a showing that a parent has not made sufficient progress in spite of DHS's reasonable efforts to provide the child a safe home.(07-05-2012)
State v. ReynoldsCriminal Law: In an assault in which the aiding person is present, an assisting assailant may not be charged with assault in the third-degree as an accomplice.(06-20-2012)
Holbrook v. Employment Dept.Employment Law: Under ORS 183.470(2), an employment appeals board must support their decisions with findings and explain how the board reached a specific conclusion.(06-06-2012)
State v. J.L.C.Juvenile Law: A juvenile court has jurisdiction over a youth when that youth commits harassing acts or offensively contacts another person. Evidence in the record may support this proposition.(05-02-2012)
State v. Linn CountyLand Use: When determining vested rights expenditure ratios, dedications may be included in the numerator. For the denominator, a court must use a total project cost, not a hypothetical cost.(05-02-2012)
Kirkpatrick and KirkpatrickFamily Law: Failure to promote a healthy relationship between parent and child can constitute a substantial change in circumstances.(03-07-2012)
State v. GruntzCriminal Procedure: To determine whether the affidavit in support of a search warrant is sufficient, the state applies the reasoning of State v. Castilleja. That is, the court’s function is limited in scope to determining whether a magistrate could have reasonably concluded the facts in an affidavit established probable cause for a search warrant.(02-08-2012)
State v. JimenezCriminal Law: Under State v. Magel, the test for cases involving a threat takes into account whether the defendant expressed an intent to harm the victim, and whether that expression could compel the victim to engage in sexual contact.(02-01-2012)
State v. SmithCriminal Procedure: A seizure occurs if an officer manifests a “show of authority” that restricts an individual’s “freedom of movement.”(01-25-2012)
State v. KinkadeCriminal Procedure: Under State v. Ashbaugh, a seizure occurs when law enforcement intentionally and significantly restricts an individual’s liberty and under the totality of the circumstances that person believes he lost his liberty.(01-05-2012)
SAIF v. SwartzWorkers Compensation: To establish compensation for medical treatment, the accepted condition must be a material cause of claimant's current condition, and the treatment must be "for" that condition.(12-29-2011)
State v. WigginsCriminal Procedure: A vehicle is considered mobile, and thus subject to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, when nothing occurs to render the vehicle immobile between the time of the initial encounter with the vehicle and when the subsequent search occurs.(12-29-2011)
State v. TaylorEvidence: The crime-fraud exception requires the party seeking the exception demonstrate the client knew his intended conduct was unlawful.(12-21-2011)
Loomis v LoomisFamily Law: A dissolution court will presume equal spousal contribution to property and annuities unless one spouse rebuts such a presumption.(12-14-2011)
State v. YoungCriminal Law: An appellate or post-conviction court may add court appointed attorney fees to a defendant's appeal following a claim for post-conviction relief.(11-09-2011)
State v. NorthcuttCriminal Law: A “compelling” atmosphere exists when officers create a police dominated environment. The factors of a “compelling” atmosphere include: 1) the location; 2) length; 3) whether the officers confronted and pressured the defendant; and 4) the defendant’s ability to terminate the encounter.(10-26-2011)
State v. NelsonEvidence: Under the Confrontation Clause of Article I, section 11, if evidence exists that a victim made prior false accusations, the defendant may cross examine the complaining witness, unless the risk of prejudice, confusion, or embarrassment substantially outweigh the cross-examination.(10-19-2011)
Maurer v. MaurerFamily Law: “Best interest” child custody cases will be analyzed using the factors in ORS 107.137 and the applicable public policy preferences.(09-21-2011)
State v. DrownCriminal Law: For the purposes of ORS 163.205, a person is guilty of first-degree criminal mistreatment when the person withholds necessary physical care to a person who is dependent upon them.(09-08-2011)
State v. McAteeCriminal Law: Under Galloway v. U.S., if the ultimate fact may be logically proven following a fact or narrative, the jury may be given the opportunity to draw that conclusion.(08-24-2011)
Roseburg Forest Products v. LundWorkers Compensation: Under Columbia Forest Products v. Woolner, there is no specific procedure for an employer to accept a combined condition.(08-17-2011)