June 2 summaries
State v. Davis
The right against self-incrimination prohibits police questioning only when a defendant is in custody or otherwise in compelling circumstances, and the right to counsel bars police questions outside the presence of counsel only once criminal proceedings have begun.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Speedis
A trial court does not overstep its sentencing authority when it employs nonenumerated factors to enhance a defendant’s sentence because 1) the state legislature authorized courts to impose a greater prison sentence if aggravating factors existed, and 2) trial courts are guided by two criteria: the seriousness of the offense and the character status of the offender, which confine impermissible vagueness issues.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
August 1 summary
State v. Lopez-Minjarez
A trial court errs when it instructs a jury that a defendant may be found criminally responsible for all the natural and probable consequences that arise from aiding and abetting a crime if the defendant has conceded guilt of specific charges which support ignorance of other charges.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
September 8 summaries
Drollinger v. Mallon
Exoneration is a prerequisite for bringing a legal malpractice claim against a defendant’s trial lawyer, but not for bringing a legal malpractice claim against post-conviction counsel.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State ex rel Engweiler v. Felton
The parole board exceeded its statutory authority by creating intermediate hearings for those convicted of juvenile aggravated murder and the parole board has a legal duty to grant parole release hearings to the defendants.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Baker
To establish whether a police officer satisfied the reasonableness requirement of the four-part “emergency aid exception” test to the warrantless search exception of the Oregon Constitution, the court should examine whether the police officer had an objectively reasonable belief, based on articulable facts that a warrantless entry was needed to aid others, prevent harm from occurring to others, or cease harm to others.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Farmers Ins. Co. v. Mowry
The court affirmed Collins v. Farmers Ins. Co. as stare decisis that that exclusion clauses within a motor vehicle insurance policy that eliminated coverage of one insured against another insured of the same policy are unenforceable to the extent that they failed to provide the minimum coverage required by law.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Ryan
In order to challenge Oregon’s stalking protective order statute on free speech grounds, a defendant must first successfully challenge the underlying protective order.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc.
Under comparative negligence, if a defendant wants to establish that a co-defendant is responsible for more of the fault based on facts not pleaded by the plaintiff, the defendant must plead the new facts as an affirmative defense in their answer.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Cloutier
Under ORS 138.050, a defendant who entered a no contest plea is unable to appeal the judgment, unless it is “unconstitutionally cruel and unusual” or “exceeds the maximum allowable by law,” with the maximum referring to the maximum amount allowable to sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Davis
A defendant may introduce evidence of prior injury to demonstrate the possibility the harm did not occur at the time in question. However, such evidence may only be admitted if valid under OEC 701.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
October 6 summaries
Arken v. City of Portland
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.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Balboa Apartments v. Patrick
Provided that requirements under ORCP 23 A and ORS 105.135 are both met, plaintiff's failure to serve a summons and amended complaint within one day of paying filing fees is not grounds for dismissal.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Goodson v. PERS
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.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Rasmussen v. Kroger
The Supreme Court may review a certified ballot title description in order to ensure that it complies with the guidelines of ORS 250.035, concerning definiteness and specificity.
Area(s) of Law:- Ballot Titles
State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak
The automobile exception to the warrant requirement defined in State v. Brown does not extend to parked, immobile, and unoccupied vehicles, absent exigent circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners
To determine the expense ratio in a Measure 49 vested rights pathway exemption, the court considers the following questions: What is the expected cost of the project? What is the expense ratio? Is the expense ratio substantial? As to the last question, ‘substantial’ is relative to the cost of the project, where a small ratio may equal millions of dollars.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
November 6 summaries
Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP
A jury could find that when a lawyer informs their client that a breach of contract occurred, an objectively reasonable person would not suspect their attorney committed legal malpractice, thus causing their client's damages.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Glushko/Little
When a defendant’s failure to appear for a hearing results in the delay of prosecution without the defendant’s consent, the delay may be considered reasonable. The state is not obliged to dismiss the charges against the defendant, despite failing to use every available means to locate them.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Swanson
A jury's authority to find a defendant guilty of a crime, the commission of which is necessarily included in that with which the defendant is charged, extends only to an offense for which a prison sentence is authorized.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire and Casualty Ins.
The 2005 amendment to ORS 742.001 that created an exemption for surplus lines insurance policies to the rule that in certain instances plaintiffs may collect attorney fees from an insurance company, does not apply to claims filed before the effective date of the amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Haugen
The Court is permitted to issue a writ of mandamus when a judge of a lower court has not followed the statutorily required procedures. Once the judge sufficiently complies with the writ, the Court may dismiss the writ.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Rasmussen v. Kroger
Ballot initiatives that substantively change existing law must directly address in the ballot title the substantive change the initiative proposes to address. Additionally, the measure must address the substantive effect of a "yes" or "no" vote.
Area(s) of Law:- Ballot Titles
December 7 summaries
Williams v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company
The State of Oregon need not be a party to a claim, or hold an interest in a claim, because its right to a 60% share of punitive damages results from the operation of law, and not from any claim it is involved with. Thus, because the state's right to 60% of punitive damages does not constitute a claim, it is not a "released claim" subject to the Master Settlement Agreement.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Girod v. Kroger
A ballot title’s caption must be specific enough for voters to identify the major effects of the proposed measure.
Area(s) of Law:- Ballot Titles
A.G. v. Guitron
Civil Procedure: ORCP 44C requires plaintiffs to produce all written reports of any examinations relating to the injuries of the claim upon request by defendant, regardless of whether their treating physician, or an expert retained solely for litigation performs the examination.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Petock v. Asante
For the purposes of determining reinstatement and reemployment rights of an employee recovering from a workers' compensation injury, the proper questions to ask are 1) did the claimant suffer a compensable injury, and 2) did the injury occur within the three-year statute of limitations period.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Robinson v. Public Employees Retirement Board
Concerning the PERS statutory contract - when a court invalidates a statutory mechanism, the Legislative Assembly remains free to provide a remedy for those who have lost payments they would have received pursuant to the mechanism.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Rainoldi
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.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
White v. Public Employees Retirement Board
When a trustee has a fiduciary duty, his or her actions will be reviewed based on the reasonableness of his or her decision-making, rather than purely weighing the costs versus the benefits.
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates