Willamette Law Online

(38 summaries)

Daniel Vall-llobera

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. Marsh & McLennon CompaniesCivil Law: ORS 59.137, allowing a party to recover damages from fraud or misrepresentation in a sale or purchase of securities, requires a party to show some sort of reliance, but the party may rely on the "fraud-on-the-market" doctrine to do so.(12-13-2012)
State v. LawsonEvidence: The Classen Test of eyewitness testimony has been revised. The state must show that the eyewitness has personal knowledge of all the facts to which he will testify, and prove that the identification was rationally based on the witness' first hand perceptions and will be helpful to the trier of fact.(11-29-2012)
State v. PittEvidence: Prior bad act evidence is not admissible to bolster a victim's credibility in identifying her abuser if there is ongoing contact between the victim and defendant. Prior bad act evidence is also not admissible to prove intent until facts establishing the charged conduct have been introduced.(10-18-2012)
Clackamas County Assessor v. Village at Main Street Phase II, LLCAttorney Fees: The Tax Court may only consider the factors specified in ORS 20.075(1) when exercising its discretion to award attorney fees. Additionally, when considering whether or not an enforcing agency has a reasonably interpretation of a statute, a tax court should consider whether and how it has been construed by the Supreme Court.(06-28-2012)
State v. McDowellCriminal Procedure: For purposes of ORS 136.290, which limits the time a defendant may be held in custody pending his trial to 60 days after the arrest, if the accusatory instrument is dismissed and the defendant is re-arrested and re-indicted on the same charges shortly thereafter, the time in custody is measured from the date of the original arrest.(05-24-2012)
State v. JarnaginCriminal Procedure: Statements from an interrogation administered without a Miranda warning that provide the basis for a voluntary reenactment sufficiently taint the reenactment such that it is unconstitutional. Additionally, notifying the defendant of his Miranda rights after initial interrogations will not be held as an invalid reading of rights if there was a substantial break in time and change of circumstances from previous interrogations.(04-26-2012)
State v. RainoldiCriminal Law: The crime "felon in possession of a firearm" does not require a culpable mental state; if it did, it would encourage ignorance of whether a person is a felon or not, and frustrate the purpose of the statute, which is to keep firearms away from criminals.(12-30-2011)
Arken v. City of PortlandEmployment Law: When the Supreme Court strikes down the two provisions in a law specifying how the Public Employee Retirement Board will collect excess benefits paid in 1999, PERB may, instead, exercise its authority under ORS 238.715 and issue an order to recover the funds.(10-06-2011)
Goodson v. PERSEmployment Law: PERB does not have the statutory authority to promise “Window Retirees” benefits based on a 20% earning credit for 1999, because there was neither a contractual obligation, nor a law entitling them to interest in such a credit such as to claim an impairment of contract or deprivation of due process when PERB acts to recover excess benefits.(10-06-2011)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Hatley v. Umatilla CountyLand Use: An ordinance must specifically seek to protect Goal 5 resources for it to be subject to the state's regulations regarding amending land-use plans. Also, when an ordinance is rejected by LUBA and a similar, but not identical one, is enacted by the local government, one challenging the ordinance has not waived any arguments or objections to the ordinance because the new challenge is a separate proceeding and not subject to waiver or preclusion.(04-03-2013)
State v. EhrensingCriminal Law: The evidence return provisions of the Oregon Revised Statutes require that the person the evidence is returned to be lawfully entitled to possess the evidence. Because possessing marijuana is illegal under federal law, the statute does not require it be returned to a defendant.(02-27-2013)
Topaz v. Board of Examiners for EngineeringCivil Law: Signing a complaint as "P.E." for professional engineer, when one lacks an active license, in a complaint regarding a public body's sewer rehabilitation plans is enough to constitute a violation of Oregon's professional engineering statute, because there is no mens rea requirement in ORS 672.045.(02-06-2013)
City of Harrisburg v. LeighLand Use: In a judgment award for fixtures placed by a trespassing city onto an owner's property to the owner, when the city condemns the property, the value of the improvements and fixtures must be included in the fair market value assessment of the condemnation proceeding.(01-16-2013)
State v. G.L.D.Juvenile Law: The antimerger statute applies whenever there is a common victim and charge if there are repeated violations separated by enough time for the defendant to renounce his criminal intent. Additionally, evidence to prove market value for purposes of a theft charge may include evidence regarding replacement costs of the property. Finally, for purposes of restitution, the juvenile code references the criminal code and includes insurance companies as victims.(11-07-2012)
Cherry v. Dept. of EducationAdministrative Law: A proposed final order revoking a bus driver's certificate is not arbitrary and capricious if the rule provides the agency with discretion in doing so, and there is no other agency rule, policy, or practice inconsistent with the exercise of that discretion.(10-24-2012)
Morton and MortonFamily Law: With regards to an inheritance, a party may rebut the presumption of equal contribution towards marital assets by demonstrating that one spouse did not contribute to acquiring the inheritance and that an intestate decedent's donative intent was that the spouse be excluded.(09-26-2012)
Providence Health Plan v. WinchesterInsurance Law: An insurer may not seek reimbursement out of the settlement its insured receives from settlements with 3rd parties until interinsurer reimbursement is no longer available, and it is available so long as no settlement has occurred. An insurer that begins to seek reimbursement before its insured and 3rd party insurers settle will be unable to recover expenses from its insured.(09-12-2012)
Bedford v. Merety Monger TrustAttorney Fees: For purposes of ORS 20.080, which grants attorney fees for small claims, the relief sought by alternative theories of relief is not aggregated to see if the relief sought exceeds the maximum for ORS 20.080. On the other hand, multiple claims arising from the same operative facts are aggregated.(08-22-2012)
State v. RitchieAppellate Procedure: An error is unpreserved if an objection is not raised with a sufficient explanation for the trial court to identify the error and correct it immediately.(08-08-2012)
Department of Human Services v. T.C.A.Family Law: Overturning a termination of parental rights does not, by implication, mean that DHS must pursue re-unification of parent and child.(07-25-2012)
S.M.H. v. Gerald Wayne AndersonFamily Abuse Prevention Act: Isolated contact without overt threats or an effort to be present in the same state as a petitioner is not sufficient to qualify as an immanent or credible threat to the physical safety of a person.(07-11-2012)
Eagles Five, LLC v. LawtonProperty Law: Injunctive relief is only an appropriate remedy when a party will experience immediate or irreparable harm without it, and it is not appropriate for future contingencies.(06-13-2012)
State v. SteffensCriminal Procedure: Outside the a natural lull occuring during the preparation of a citation or investigation, the police may only inquire about a matter unrelated to a traffic stop if there is a reasonable suspicion of crime-related activity or danger to the officer or the public.(06-07-2012)
State v. BabsonConstitutional Law: Article IV, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution does not protect co-chairs sitting in a legislative committee from being brought before a court for questioning, so long as it limited to their capacity in enforcement (as opposed to enactment) of legislation.(04-11-2012)
Department of Human Services v. B.B.Juvenile Law: A history of sexual abuse is insufficient grounds to support a finding, sixteen years after the last confirmed instance of abuse, that a father presents a current risk of danger to his minor children.(03-14-2012)
Woods v. HillTort Law: As a matter of law, a defendant may not avoid liability for his negligence by asserting a subsequent appeal should never have happened.(03-07-2012)
State v. ShirkCriminal Procedure: If consent for a search is acquired during an unlawful custodial interrogation, evidence from that search should be suppressed if there are no circumstances that attenuate the link between the consent and the interrogation.(02-23-2012)
Cruze v. HudlerAppellate Procedure: When the Court misstates an immaterial fact in an opinion, it may still reconsider the opinion, but only to make a minor correction to the prior opinion to delete the misstatement in question.(02-15-2012)
State v. MillsSentencing: Per State v. Lauers, first-degree arson convictions arising under the same section of the criminal code may be merged. However, an assignment of error for failure to merge is not preserved unless it is presented before the trial court during the sentence hearing.(02-08-2012)
SAIF v. OwensWorkers Compensation: An attending physician must affirmatively release a claimant to work at the job at injury before a claim may be closed; if the job-at-injury is incorrectly identified, the physician has not affirmatively released the claimant. The only evidence that the board may consider when evaluating impairment findings is the report from the medical arbiter and the attending physician.(12-29-2011)
Hamscam and HamscamFamily Law: When reviewing de novo, the Court will review the trial court's decision to ensure it used the proper methodology when awarding marital property; property acquired before the marriage are not marital assets, but will be awarded as just and proper, factoring the parties' intent to keep it separate or turn it into join property of the marriage.(12-14-2011)
State v. UlizziCriminal Procedure: Even when information that led to the issuance of a warrant is "stale," a court will give deference to the issuing court and uphold a warrant that may yield potential evidence.(11-09-2011)
SAIF v. HanscramWorkers Compensation: The "date of injury" occurs on the date when a claimant becomes disabled or seeks treatment for a compensable condition. A condition becomes compensable when the claimant's work is the major contributing cause of the injury.(11-02-2011)
Young v. StateEmployment Law: Barring contractual provisions to the contrary, only simple interest will be awarded on a judgment. Further, interest does not qualify as “wages” for purposes of ORS 652.150.(10-19-2011)
Campbell v. Employment DepartmentEmployment Law: A finding that an employee lacked good cause to voluntarily leave a job will not be sustained when the evidence indicates the claimant constantly refused to hide financial improprieties and could reasonably expect a charge of insubordination and termination.(09-21-2011)
River’s Edge Investments, LLC v. BendContract Law: A development agreement with provisions addressing exactions and system development charges (SDC) will interpret the nature of those SDC’s in the context of the agreement and not necessarily find they are exactions in the context of the agreement, unlike relevant case law.(09-08-2011)
State v. JonesCriminal Procedure: An officer requesting identification is not enough to amount to a stop because a reasonable person would not perceive it as a show of authority; so long as a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity begins before a stop does, it is legal.(08-31-2011)
Dept. of Human Services v. A.M.C.Family Law: To terminate parental rights, DHS must present clear and convincing evidence that a parent’s conduct or condition is seriously detrimental to the child; and a judgment terminating parental rights cannot be supported by evidence regarding the condition without evidence regarding detriment.(08-17-2011)