Oregon Supreme Court (2 summaries)
Barbara Ellison v. Department of Revenue, State of Oregon
When revision of an opinion would not bring into question the opinion's reasoning or result and could foreclose another court, modification is allowed. Chart Development Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 16 OTR 9, 14-15 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Behrle v. Taylor, Superintendent Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution
When it becomes clear in the course of a judicial proceeding that resolving the merits of a claim “no longer will have a practical effect on or concerning the rights of the parties,” the case is moot. Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402, 406, 848 P2d 1194 (1993)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (23 summaries)
Arlene J. Hurtley v. Chad J. Hurtley
In interpreting the dissolution judgment, we seek to give effect to the intent of the trial court when it entered it. Neal and Neal, 181 Or App 361, 366, 45 P3d 1011 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Sim
Evidence admitted over a defendant’s OEC 403 objection is not unfairly prejudicial simply because it is harmful to the defense. State v. Shaw, 338 Or 586, 614, 113 P3d 898 (2005). Rather, unfair prejudice in the context of OEC 403 means “’an undue tendency to suggest decisions on an improper basis, commonly although not always an emotional one.’” State v. White, 71 Or App 299, 303, 692 P2d 167 (1984), rev den, 298 Or 705 (1985). “The critical inquiry in deter¬mining whether evidence is unfairly prejudicial is whether the evidence improperly appeals to the preferences of the trier of fact for reasons that are unrelated to the power of the evidence to establish a material fact.” State v. Sewell, 257 Or App 462, 468-69, 307 P3d 464, rev den, 354 Or 389 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State of Oregon v. Jonathan William Harrell
“In reviewing a trial court’s admission of eyewitness identification evidence, we defer to the court’s findings of fact as long as they are supported by any evidence in the record; we review the trial court’s evidentiary ruling for legal error.” State v. Engle, 278 Or App 54, 55, 373 P3d 1191, rev den, 360 Or 465 (2016)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Arms v. SAIF
“Whether for purposes of the compensability of medi¬cal treatment, a claimant’s condition is analyzed as a consequential condition only under ORS 656.245 or as an “ordinary” condition under ORS 656.245 and ORS 656.225 makes little difference; in either case, treatment of the worsened pre-existing condition is compensable if the accepted work injury or its treatment was the major contributing cause of the worsened condition.”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Mall v. Horton
“An expert may be qualified under OEC 702 by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” State v. Woodbury, 289 Or App 109, 115, 408 P3d 267 (2017)
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Nicole McLaughlin v. Kenneth Wilson, M.D.
Pursuant to ORS 659A.030(1)(f), “(1) It is an unlawful employment practice: (f) [f]or any person to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any other person because that other person has opposed any unlawful practice, or because that other person has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter or has attempted to do so.”
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Jewell v. SAIF
When a condition causing the claimant’s symptoms establishes that the condition developed gradually over time, the claimant has not experienced an injury, and the claim must be analyzed as an occupational disease. Luton v. Willamette Valley Rehabilitation Center, 272 Or App 487, 490, 356 P3d 150 (2015)
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Neikes v. Ticor Title Company of Oregon
The existence and amount of [the] damages must be established with reasonable certainty. If the trier of fact must resort to speculation, conjecture or surmise, a claim of damages with fail. Newell v. Weston, 150 Or. App. 562, 582, 946 P2d 691 (1997) rev den, 327 Or 317 (1998)
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Timothy C. Guild v. SAIF Corporation
“If the board’s finding is reasonable in the light of countervailing as well as supporting evidence, then the finding is supported by substantial evidence.” Elsea v. Liberty Mutual Ins., 277 Or App 475, 476, 371 P3d 1279 (2016); ORS 656.298; ORS 183.482(7) - (8).; ORS 183.482(8)(c) (“Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State of Oregon v. T.W.
In order to prove that a person is a danger to himself, the state must show that their “mental disorder will cause him to behave in a way that is likely to result in actual serious physical harm to himself in the near future.However, the required expectation of actual serious physical harm must be established by more than mere speculation or conjecture.” State v. L. D., 247 Or App 394, 399, 270 P3d 324 (2011)
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Troubled Asset Solutions v. Wilcher
Reformation is “an equitable remedy by which a court may revise the written expression of an agreement to conform to the intentions of the parties to it.” A & T Siding, Inc., 358 Or at 42. “There is a strong presumption that a deed expresses what the parties had in mind, and the burden of overcoming the presumption rests on the party seeking reformation.” Murray v. Laugsand, 179 Or App 291, 300, 39 P3d 241 (2002)
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
SAIF v. Massari
An injury occurs in the course of employment if it takes place during a period of employment, at a place where the worker reasonably may be expected to be, and while the worker is fulfilling duties of the employment or doing something reasonably incidental to the employment. Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Hayes, 325 Or 592, 598, 943 P2d 197 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Shicor v. Board of Speech Language Path. and Aud.
It is “well established that due process does not require a formal separation of the investigative functions from the adjudicative or decision-making functions of an administrative agency, nor does it preclude those who perform the latter from participating in the investigative phase.” Fritz v. OSP, 30 Or App 1117, 1121, 569 P2d 654 (1977) (citing Withrow v. Larkin, 421 US 35, 95 S Ct 1456, 43 L Ed 2d 712 (1975)).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Melissa Louise Stephens v. Rob Persson, Coffee Creek Correctional Facility
In order to establish that counsel provided inadequate counsel for purposes of Article I, section 11, one must prove two elements: (1) a performance element: that trial counsel “failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment”; and (2) a prejudice element: that “petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequacy.” Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Service Employees International Union Local 503, Oregon Public Employees Union v. University of Oregon
“It is well settled that a public employer’s obligation to collectively bargain in good faith under ORS 243.672(1)(e) includes promptly providing and exlusive representative with requested information that has ‘some probable or potential relevance to a grievance or other contractual matter.’” Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. State of Oregon, Department of Corrections, Case No. UP-7-98, 18 PECBR 64, 70 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
South Valley Bank & Trust v. Colorado Dutch, LLC
Pursuant to ORS 18.165, “If a judgment with lien effect under ORS 18.150, 18.152 or 18.158 is entered or recorded in a county before a conveyance, or a memorandum of a conveyance, of real property of the debtor is recorded in that county, the conveyance of the judgment debtor’s interest is void as against the lien of the judgment unless: (a) The grantee under the conveyance is a purchaser in good faith for a valuable consideration . . .”
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Tressel v. Williams
When interpreting an express easement, the court must “look first to the words of the easement, viewing them in the context of the entire document.” Kell v. Oppenlander, 154 Or App 422, 426, 961 P2d 861 (1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Schroeder v. Clackamas County Bank
ORS 20.105 provides that a court can award reasonable attorney fees only if it determines that the nonprevailing party had “no objectively reasonable bases for asserting the claim.” A party’s claim is not objectively reasonable if it “is entirely devoid of legal or factual support, either at the time it is made or in light of additional evidence or changes in the law as litigation proceeds.” Williams v. Salem Women’s Clinic, 245 Or App 476, 482, 263 P3d 1072 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Bradford
"For police officers to make a stop, they must reasonably suspect-based on specific and articulable facts-that the person committed a specific crime or type of crime or was about to commit a specific crime or type of crime." State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 182, 389 P3d 1121 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Lantz
When two or more counts involve the same conduct or criminal episode, the counts merge unless one of the provisions of ORS 161.067 operates to preclude merger. State v. Nelson, 282 Or App 427, 431, 386 P3d 73 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Halvorson v. Real Estate Agency
“If there is evidence creating a relevant fact issue, then no matter how ‘overwhelming’ the moving party’s evidence may be, or how implausible the nonmoving party’s version of the historical facts, the nonmoving party, upon proper request, it entitled to a hearing.” Watts v. Board of Nursing, 282 Or App 705, 714, 386 P3d 34 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Wilda v. Roe
"ORS 471.565(1) does not prohibit a patron's claim that seeks contribution for payment of the damages of the plaintiff injured by the intoxicated patron."
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Berger v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Under ORS 742.061(2), the assertion that medical services are not reasonable and necessary brings the dispute outside of the safe-harbor. Under ORS 742.061(3), subsequent pleadings will not forfeit safe-harbor protection.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law