Willamette Law Online

(17 summaries)

Benjamin Willis

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Hope Presbyterian Church of Rogue River v. Presbyterian Church USAProperty Law: Under the neutral principles approach to church property, an church affiliate holds its property in an irrevocable trust for the national organization when the national organization's constitution and the affiliate's own documents declare their intent that the property is held in trust.(11-29-2012)
Gunderson, LLC, v. City of Portland, et al.,Land Use: Requiring industrial landowners in the "North Reach" area of the Willamette River to submit development plans for approval by a River Review process to ensure the goals of the 1973 Willamette River Greenway plan is within the power of the City of Portland.(11-08-2012)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Singh v. McLaughlinCivil Procedure: A directed verdict by the trial court will be reversed and remanded by the Court of Appeals if the Court find that the plaintiff presented enough evidence for his claims to be evaluated by a jury.(02-21-2013)
Uhl v. KrupskyProperty Law: The statutory requirement under ORS 105.620 requiring an "honest belief of actual ownership" for claims of adverse possession does not apply to parties extinguishing an easement across their land through adverse possession. (01-30-2013)
Evergreen West Business Center v. EmmertRemedies: An equitable remedy is not available to a party simply because a jury returns a lesser award than requested. Additionally, 600,000:1 ratio for punitive damages is not excessive when it is necessary to deter future tortious conduct.(12-27-2012)
Lucas v. Lake CountyCivil Procedure: A suit between two parties is not barred by claim preclusion when there is prior litigation between the parties that arose from a different transaction. Additionally, a claim is wrongfully dismissed when the amended complaints were consistent in showing the discharge offends public policy.(10-24-2012)
State v. PetersonCriminal Procedure: When determining a motion to dismiss under a speedy trial argument, the court must determine the length of the delay minus any periods of delay that the defendant consented to. Then, the court must determine whether the delay was reasonable after viewing the circumstances as a whole.(09-26-2012)
State v. DawsonCriminal Procedure: Under ORS 137.020, following a guilty plea or verdict, there shall be at least two calendar days between the time of verdict and sentencing.(08-29-2012)
Howard v. Chimps, Inc.Contract Law: Even if a contract is subject to unilateral changes, consideration is found upon performance of the promises exchanged between the parties.(08-08-2012)
State v. VanlieuCriminal Procedure: When a trial court fails to use its statutory discretion to extend a probationary period, it cannot revoke probation based on conduct which occurred after the original probationary period was set to expire.(07-25-2012)
State v. BertschEvidence: A person's proximity to criminal activity does not give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in the criminal activity. Also, evidence collected during an unlawfully extended traffic stop, even after consent from the vehicle's owner, should be suppressed.(07-11-2012)
City of Eugene v. McDermedWorkers Compensation: Compensation for an injury is correctly awarded to a police officer injured while getting coffee if the officer was on duty at the time of the injury, and thus was within the scope of her employment.(06-27-2012)
Homebuilders Assoc. of Metro. Portland v. MetroTax Law: Expanding the scope of Metro's construction tax did not make it a new tax subject to the restrictions of SB 1036 or MC 2.19.200 because it was an extension or continuation of the present tax and did not materially alter it.(06-13-2012)
SAIF v. DCBSWorkers Compensation: The status of a "worker" requires the application of both the "right to control" and the "nature of the work" tests.(06-06-2012)
Department of Human Services v. C.M.M.Family Law: When determining the fitness of a parent, the test is at the time of termination and focuses on the detrimental effects of the parent's conduct on the child.(05-16-2012)
C.L.C. v. BowmanCivil Stalking Protective Order: Terminating a Stalking Protective Order (SPO) involves considering all of the evidence, including internet evidence, to determine if the context that gave rise to the SPO still causes a subjective apprehension of a threat to their personal safety. If the context still exists and is otherwise objectively reasonable, the SPO should not be terminated.(05-02-2012)
Dept. of Human Services v. B.W.Family Law: The rational relationship requirement is only a minimal threshold for the court to consider alongside other items when determining the validity of an order.(03-28-2012)