Willamette Law Online

(15 summaries)

Brianna Wellman

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Rice v. RabbTort Law: Claims for conversion and replevin "accrue" under ORS 12.080(4) when plaintiff knows or reasonably should know the elements of such claims.(01-30-2014)
State v. BackstrandCriminal Procedure: A mere request for identification made by an officer in the course of an otherwise lawful encounter does not, in and of itself, result in a seizure.(11-21-2013)
State v. SavastanoConstitutional Law: A prosecutor’s decision will comply with Article 1, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution as long as there is a rational explanation for the differential treatment that is reasonably related to his or her official task or to the person’s individual situation.(09-12-2013)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Eclectic Investment, LLC. v. PattersonTort Law: The distinction between active and passive negligence is but one factor to consider when determining whether or not indemnification among co-defendants is proper.(02-26-2014)
State v. AdameCriminal Procedure: If a defendant understands that a refusal to perform verbal field sobriety tests cannot be used against him in a court of law, the defendant is not "compelled" to provide testimonial evidence for the purposes of the self-incrimination clause.(02-12-2014)
Tilson and TilsonFamily Law: Modification of spousal support award is warranted upon spouse's remarriage if the remarriage constitutes a substantial, unanticipated change in economic circumstances. Continuation of maintenance support award may be appropriate if the remarriage does not address or fully satisfy the purposes of the original spousal support award.(12-26-2013)
Conrady v. Lincoln CountyLand Use: An ordinance in Lincoln County, LCC 1.1375(2)(m), which requires a landowner to obtain a conditional use permit prior to opening a "firearms training facility," is not preempted by ORS 166.170, ORS 166.171, or ORS 166.176.(12-18-2013)
State v. D.P.Juvenile Law: In determining whether or not a circumstance is compelling in the case of a juvenile and thus requiring Miranda warnings, the court will look at the totality of the circumstances.(10-30-2013)
Alcutt v. Adams Family Food Services, Inc.Workers Compensation: The exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Law is unconstitutional as applied to a worker left with no process through which to seek redress for an injury for which a cause of action exists at common law.(10-09-2013)
Dept. of Human Services v. D.A.N.Juvenile Law: Parent who fails to meet obligations under an action agreement due to brevity of incarceration allows a court to conclude that parent has not made sufficient progress under ORS 419B.476(2) when reunification would not occur for a minimum of nine months.(08-14-2013)
State v. KlontzEvidence: Evidential error is not presumed to be prejudicial; a decision can be upheld if the court makes it clear that it did not rely on the disputed evidence in making its decision.(07-31-2013)
Aponte v. StatePost-Conviction Relief: If factual findings of a post-conviction court’s ruling remain unchallenged and Defendant is unable to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defense counsel provided ineffective legal assistance, post-conviction relief will be denied.(07-10-2013)
State v. KingsmithCriminal Procedure: Incriminating evidence obtained against a particular defendant during a traffic stop should be suppressed if the officer's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity was not based on actions or characteristics of that defendant.(05-30-2013)
Marton v. Ater Construction Co., LLCCivil Procedure: A party who enters into a settlement with a claimant is not entitled to recover contribution or indemnity from a third-party whose liability is not extinguished by the settlement.(05-15-2013)
State v. McClureCriminal Procedure: Taking a person into custody for a parole violation constitutes an "arrest" for the purposes of the resisting arrest statute, ORS 162.315.(04-17-2013)