Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)
In re Ellis/ Rosenbaum
The Bar must prove disciplinary actions by clear and convincing evidence, which means the trust of the facts asserted is highly probable.
Area(s) of Law:- Professional Responsibility
Oregon Court of Appeals (9 summaries)
State v. Luxford
Under ORS 163.275, by forcing the victim to relinquish car keys that she had a legal interest in, defendant compelled the victim to engage in conduct from which she had a legal right to abstain.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Jeld Wen, Inc. v. Cooper
Employer dismissed employees claim for workers compensation without sufficient evidence to support employers claim that the current condition of the injury could not be used as evidence to assess the original injury.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Bartlett
Where defendant's acts do not deprive a service provider of a right to payment, under ORS 164.125 there is no theft of property and therefore a robbery has not been committed.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State of Oregon v. D.C. (a youth)
Based on victim testimony, furtive movements by Defendant to distance himself from stolen property, and Defendant's consent to search the bag, there was a reasonable basis established for probable cause to search a backpack.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Spieler
Defendant's confession in order to cooperate with police was not improper. Prosecutors closing remarks concerning defense's inability to admit evidence, as evidence of defendant’s guilt, was improper.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Miller v. Miller
If all factors are equal and without a factual showing of detriment to the child, preference under ORS 107.137 must be given to the primary caregiver.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
JRP Construction Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Business Services
Director's dismissal of ALJ decision for attorneys’ fees concerning litigating the insurance pre-authorization under ORS 656.704(2)(a) was improper because the use of moot was ambiguous in this context and the issue concerning attorney’s fees must be reconsidered.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State of Oregon v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
ORS 59.135 does not possess a rebuttable presumption component concerning fraud in reliance, nor is there a federal preemption problem concerning the dormant Commerce Clause because Oregon law does not require those elements as proof.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Tucker
Under ORS 137.225, the second public indecency (or similar) conviction, which amounts to a “sex crime” as defined in ORS 181.805, is ineligible to be set aside.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law