Oregon Supreme Court (6 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. 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
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
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
State v. Eggers
Under ORS 166.255(3)(e), harassment as defined in ORS 166.065(1)(a)(A) is a qualifying misdemeanor designed to mirror United States v. Castleman.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
In re Munn
Failure to review discovery results in inadequate advice that violates RPC 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4(b) and warrants suspension.
Area(s) of Law:- Professional Responsibility
Oregon Court of Appeals (7 summaries)
State v. Bonczkowski
Under OEC 401, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of significance more or less probable; under OEC 403, a claim that relevant evidence should be inadmissible is waived if not raised during trial.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Rodriguez
Under Article I, Section 12 of the Oregon Constitution, Miranda warnings are required when a person is in custody or subjected to compelling circumstances equivalent to custody.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. J. J. S.
ORS 426.095(1) allows courts to balance patient convenience against judicial efficiency in civil commitment hearings, and ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D) constitutionally authorizes firearm prohibitions for dangerous individuals.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Lavelle-Hayden v. Employment Dept.
The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause states that a state cannot deny unemployment benefits to a person who loses their job for conduct based on sincere “beliefs rooted in religion.”
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Dept. of Human Services v. E. L. P.
Telephonic Appearance Does Not Violate ORS 419B.875(2)(c) or Due Process if Defendant is able to Meaningfully Participate in the Proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Oxford
Detailed jury instructions can remedy an unintentional prosecutorial mistake, and expert testimony lacking verified scientific reliability can be excluded.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Siletz Anglers Assn. v. ODFW
State Department Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) acted within its authority in adopting temporary rules to restrict Chinook Salmon harvest and prevent overharvest.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law