Oregon Supreme Court (5 summaries)
Robinson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.
In regards to personal jurisdiction, the appropriate standard for determining if the "arising out of or relating to" requirement supports the exercise of specific jurisdiction is the but-for and foreseeability of litigation test.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Klutschkowski v. PeaceHealth
A statutory cap on a jury's award of noneconomic damages is unconstitutional if the plaintiff's cause of action was recognized by the common law in place when Oregon's Constitution was adopted.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Gable v. State
A post-conviction claim for relief based on inadequate assistance of counsel must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Haugen v. Kitzhaber
A reprieve is effective regardless of whether the reprieve is accepted or rejected by the grantee.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
In re Walton
The Oregon Supreme Court independently determines sanctions for reciprocal discipline proceedings when the lawyer's conduct also violates Oregon's professional rules.
Area(s) of Law:- Professional Responsibility
Oregon Court of Appeals (32 summaries)
City of Beaverton v. Pack
When reviewing the sufficiency of a jury instruction, the Court will review all instructions given to determine whether the jury was properly informed of the applicable requirements of the crime charged.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Bradley v. State of Oregon
Under ORS 376.185(1), a court shall not unreasonably withhold its consent to a landowner's petition for a way of necessity. Whether consent is unreasonably withheld is measured by whether the withholding was arbitrary or capricious.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Croghan v. Don's Dugout, LLC
When a party believes that a verdict is inconsistent it must (1) object to the verdict before the jury is discharged, and (2) request jury clarification of the matter under ORCP 59 G(4).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Hawkins
Under ORS 138.230, an error is not harmless when a defendant is denied their right to an acquittal and their right to have the judgment reflect that acquittal.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Wright v. Turner
The term "accident", as used in statutorily prescribed insurance contracts, is interpreted by legislative intent. Furthermore, whether more than one "accident" has occurred is ordinarily a question of fact reserved for the factfinder.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Leach v. Scottsdale Indemnity Co.
An insurer's duty to defend arises when a claim against its insured could, without amendment, impose liability for conduct covered by the policy. An insurer's duty to indemnify arises only where the insured is actually liable for harm or injury covered by the policy.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Delong
When an individual consents to a search following a custodial interrogation where Miranda warnings were not given, that consent is not a knowing and voluntary waiver of the individual's rights under the Oregon Constitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. A. D. G.
Under ORS 419B.923(7), the juvenile court may enter default judgment, terminating an individual's parental rights, only when that person is absent from the hearing or trial on termination petition.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Lane
OAR 213-012-0040(2) limits a trial court’s authority to impose consecutive prison terms when there is a single probation violation.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
WaterWatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dept.
Under ORS 537.230(2) the measuring point for determining the portion of a permit that is "undeveloped" for purposes of ORS 537.230(2)c, and the "maximum rate diverted for beneficial use before the extension" for the purposes of ORS 537.230(2)b, is the expiration of the development deadline in the permit or last-issued extension.
Area(s) of Law:- Water Rights
State v. Patton
Material variance between pleadings and proof does not exist when a rational trier of fact could conclude, based on credible testimony and reasonable inferences, that a defendant committed the alleged crime.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Gilmore and Ambrose
When calculating child support obligations the court must follow the steps of the child support guidelines formula.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc.
An individuals right to disaffirm a voidable contract is destroyed upon ratification.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Quick Collect, Inc. v. Higgins
Under ORAP 5.45(1), a party claiming error must present the claim of error to the trial court before the Court of Appeals will consider it on appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Columbia River
Under ORS 196.115(3)(d), the Court shall remand the commission's acceptance of a proposal if it is inconsistent with an agency rule, or an officially stated position or practice, unless the inconsistency is explained, or if the commission's decision is in violation of a statutory provision.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Coronado
The Court follows a two-step process in deciding to review alleged plain error. First, if the error is unpreserved, it must be one of law, apparent or not reasonably in dispute, and appear on the face of the record. Second, the Court considers factors to decide if the error should be reviewed.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
McMurchie and McMurchie
When determining a parent's presumed income, for the purposes of determining a child support obligation, a court may consider the parent's actual income or potential income, but not both.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dow and Dow
In modifying a stipulated judgment of dissolution, a provision that does not contravene public policy or the law does not limit a court's ability to modify it. Additionally, a change of circumstances initiating modification can be the product of either party.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. McGee
When applying ORS 135.747 in a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, the Court uses a two-step approach. First, the Court determines the total amount of delay and subtracts any delay caused by Defendant's application or consent. Second, the Court determines whether the remaining delay is reasonable.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Aitken
Under ORS 161.067(3), criminal violations involving the same conduct against the same victim will merge unless the violations can be separated by a sufficient pause in the defendant's criminal conduct that would allow an opportunity to renounce the criminal intent.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
PIH Beaverton, LLC v. Super One, Inc.
Under ORS 12.135(3), an improvement to real property is considered substantially complete when the contractee has accepted the completion in writing or when a contractee has accepted construction that actually has been completed.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Steele and Steele
A court may authorize an award of indefinite compensatory and maintenance spousal support if, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the award provides to both spouses a standard of living roughly similar to the one during marriage.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dept. of Human Services v. S.C.S
Jurisdiction in custody cases involving multiple jurisdictions is determined by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), ORS 109.701 to 109.834. Pursuant to ORS 109.741(1), the court may make an initial custody determination.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Turner
Under State v. Glushko/Little, failure to appear does not equal the defendant's consent to a delay for the purposes of ORS 135.747. The Court may also look to the cause of the delay in determining whether the Defendant was brought to trial in a reasonable amount of time.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Soto
An unlawful seizure occurs when, without justification, the totality of a police officer's actions have led a person to reasonably believe that their liberty or freedom of movement was restricted by the officer's show of authority.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Rice v. Rabb
The legislature will clearly state if a discovery rule applies to a statute of limitations.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. O'Hara
To satisfy the element of forcible compulsion, the trier of fact may consider circumstances known to the defendant that relate to whether the victim was in fact compelled.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Hollywood
Testimony of one witness regarding the credibility of another witness is impermissible. Additionally, the Court suggests that the trial judge should summarily cut off questions that elicit testimony on the credibility of a witness so that a jury is not contaminated by it.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Johnson
Under ORS 166.382(1)(a)(A), the meaning of the term "bomb" requires that a device be capable of detonating under certain conditions. The statute does not suggest that a device is not a "bomb" just because the device is temporarily disabled.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Case v. Burton
Under common law and ORS 105.620, a claim for adverse possession fails if the claimant does not adequately identify the area that was allegedly adversely possessed.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Young
When a court imposes a post-prison supervision term it cannot be for an indefinite period and dependent upon the amount of prison time the defendant actually serves. If the sentence is concurrent with a prison term, the sum of the two terms cannot exceed the statutory maximum indeterminate sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Jordan
Under ORS 137.106(1)(a), the appropriate cut-off date for restitution is the date imposed by the sentencing court, and the trial court may award restitution for income lost up until that date.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure