January 1 summary
Huseky v. Department of Corrections
Under ORCP 21, a plaintiff need not plead an enforceable right to future employment to allege economic damages.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
February 0 summaries
March 1 summary
Gilbert / March v. Dept. of Energy
Under OAR 345-0371(9), EFSC is required to grant contested case proceedings only when it raises a significant issue of fact or law that is reasonably likely to affect the amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
April 2 summaries
State v. Cotter
Under State v. Meyrick and State v. Langley, a waiver of counsel must be knowing and intentional, with the preferred means being colloquy on the record, and courts may not presume waiver from a silent record.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Twigg v. Admiral Ins. Co.
“Whether an insurance claim seeks recovery for an “accident” does not depend on a plaintiff’s pleading decisions in the underlying claim against the insured but depends instead on whether there is a basis in fact for imposing tort liability.” … Because the insured “breached a duty imposed by law, and not one solely arising from contract”, the property damage is covered under the insurer’s policy for indemnification.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
May 2 summaries
State v. Perez
“[A] plain-error challenge based on the prosecution’s purportedly improper arguments to the jury [requires] that the defendant establish that it is obvious and beyond reasonable dispute that the prosecutor’s statements were improper, whether because they misstated the law, adversely commented on the defendant’s exercise of a constitutional right, referenced matters not in evidence, or otherwise could only be understood to have urged the jury to draw an impermissible inference.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
KKMH Properties, LLC v. Shire
Under ORS 90.392(3)(c) must state that a violation can be cured when, as a matter of law, a tenant has a right to cure the violation.
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
June 2 summaries
State v. Walsh
A provision in a plea agreement that the court “may impose” consecutive sentences is ambiguous and can mean that the court has the authority to impose consecutive sentences with or without certain statutory findings.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Burton
Absence of evidence may be argued to show reasonable doubt, but evidence that is not in the record with the potential to mislead the jury may not be.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
July 2 summaries
Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
A legislative tax classification is constitutional if it is rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
State v. Logston
Where there is no other limiting authority, a court is permitted under the Oregon Constitution to impose consecutive sentences when the crimes involve different victims, even across separate cases and after a probation revocation.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
August 0 summaries
September 2 summaries
Hathaway v. B & J Property Investments, Inc.
ORS.125 does not contain a discovery rule; the one-year limitation period begins when the agreement is breached.
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
State v. Hernandez-Esteban
It is not within the permissible bounds of discretion for a trial court to do nothing when case specific substantial prejudice has been established
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
October 1 summary
Jared v. Harmon
A violation of habitability by a landlord does not permit a tenant to violate their own duties to keep the premises clean and sanitary
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant