Oregon Supreme Court

Opinions Filed in December 2022

Huggett v. Kelly

Under Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or. 604, 523 P.3d 86 (2022), petitioners are eligible for post-conviction relief when their cases were decided by nonunanimous jury verdicts, unless the State raises a procedural defense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Jones v. Brown

Under Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or. 604, 523 P.3d 86 (2022), the Court held that Ramos applied to all decisions decided by nonunanimous juries, even if the decisions were finalized before Ramos.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Picker v. Dep’t of Revenue

“Where payment of the [disputed] tax, penalty, and interest would be an undue hardship, plaintiff may file an affidavit alleging undue hardship.” ORS 305.419(3).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Scott-Schwalbach v. Rosenblum

For a certified ballot title, “The caption must ‘reasonably identif[y] the subject matter”; “the ‘yes’ result statement” must state “the result” of measure approval; and the summary must summarize the “measure and its major effect.” ORS 250.035(2)(a), (b), and (d).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

State v. Martin

“A parolee must have an opportunity to be heard and to show . . . if he did [violate parole conditions], that circumstances in mitigation suggest that the violation does not warrant revocation.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488 (1972).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Watkins v. Ackley

Under ORS 138.530(1)(a), post-conviction relief based on the denial of constitutional rights is appropriate when the rights at issue are “consequential in the criminal [] proceeding” and “offensive to our judicial sense of fairness.” Brooks v. Gladden, 226 Or 191, 204 (1961) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

State v. H.D.E.

“[A] person initiates [a] false report ‘if the person falsely alleges new circumstances to which the law enforcement agency is reasonably likely to respond as a current separate crime or emergency itself.’” State v. Branch, 362 Or 351, 368 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v Delaney

Under ORS 132.560(3), a court may sever claims from joinder when “the state or defendant is substantially prejudiced by a joinder of offenses . . .”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Jimenez v. Dep’t of Revenue

ORS 305.437(2) provides, in pertinent part, “(a) A taxpayer’s position is ‘frivolous’ if there was no objectively reasonable basis for asserting that position[; and] (b) ‘[p]osition’ means any . . . argument asserted by a taxpayer without regard to any other . . . argument asserted by the taxpayer.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Skinner and Skinner

“[W]here a money award has been modified on appeal and the only action necessary in the trial court is compliance with the mandate of the appellate court, then the interest on the award, as modified, should run from the date of the original judgment.” Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or. 369 (1999).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

State v. Colgrove

ORS 138.105(5) states “[t]he appellate court has no authority to review the validity of the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction based on the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Back to Top