Oregon Court of Appeals (12 summaries)
State v. Trident Seafoods Corp.
Per an agreement, a fish processor must pay fair market value for fish caught over the established limits, whether or not the fish was ultimately processed.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Cox
Testimony of an expert witness regarding the credibility of another witness should not be submitted to the jury when there is a substantial risk of the testimony prejudicing the jury toward a third witness.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Dew v. Bay Area Health District
Under Oregon Evidence Code 401, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. In this case, the exclusion of medical testimony could make any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more probable than without the evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Frey
Where an action is a material fact to proving whether defendant committed a crime, the court shall give the jury a "Boots instruction." That is, at minimum 10 jurors must concur that a defendant intended to commit the crime, and that he intended to commit a material fact to that crime.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. S.J.F.
Failure to inform the person on trial during a civil commitment hearing of their right to an attorney, right to subpoena witnesses, reason they are appearing in court, and the consequences of the proceeding constitutes plain error reviewable de novo.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Baggarley v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
When a claimant became aware of his or her work-related injury is a question of fact for the jury to decide in determining the statute of limitations period on a workplace injury claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Dinicola v. State
Employees may be exempt from overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act depending on the nature of their work, and the classification of their job.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Condon
The 90-day timeline established by Oregon's criminal restitution statute may be extended for good cause.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Reynolds
In order for a court to find intent to defraud, a person must have a conscious objective to use deception to take property.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Hood v. Employment Dept.
In order to receive unemployment benefits, an employee fired for misconduct must fall either under a good faith error exception, or a refusal to follow an unreasonable employer policy exception.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Hubbell v. Sanders
To establish a restraining order under the Family Abuse and Prevention Act (FAA), a person must have sufficient evidence, subjectively or objectively, but evidence of future abuse and credible threat to physical safety must be present.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Warkentin v. Employment Dept.
In order for an employee to quit with good cause and collect unemployment insurance benefits, an employee must have left employment under circumstances that a reasonable person would believe they had no reasonable alternative to leaving their job and such findings be the EAB must be supported by substantial evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law