Certain Underwriters v. TNA NA Manufacturing, Inc.
“When a contracting party seeks to immunize itself from liability for its own negligence, its intention to do so must be clearly and unequivocally expressed.” American Wholesale Products v. Allstate Ins. Co., 288 Or App 418, 423, 406 (2017). A contract that contains a “broad reference to ‘any liability’ suggests that the parties intended for the provision to limit ‘any liability’ regardless of whether that liability arose in tort or in contract.” Kaste v. Land O’Lakes Purina Feed, LLC, 284 Or App 233, 246 (2017) (quoting Northwest Pine Products v. Cummins Northwest, Inc., 126 Or App 219, 221 (1994)). Additionally, the “separation of the limitations-of-liability section from the warranty section suggests that the parties intended for the limitations to apply to claims beyond warranty claims.” Kaste, 284 Or App 246 (citing Northwest Pine Products, 126 Or App 221).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Coast 2 Coast Logistics v. Badger Auctioneers
Oregon subscribes to an objective theory of contracts. In ascertaining the meaning of a contract, the court examines the parties’ objective manifestations of intent, as evidenced by their communications and acts. Newton/Boldt v. Newton, 192 Or App 386, 392, rev den, 337 Or 84 (2004), cert den, 543 US 1173 (2005); Cryo-Tech, Inc. v. JKC Bend, LLC, 313 Or App 413, 428 (2021), rev den, 369 Or 211 (2022). When a party prevails in an action that encompasses both a claim for which attorney fees are authorized and a claim for which they are not authorized, the court generally must apportion the fees incurred for each claim. Greb v. Murray, 102 Or App 573, 576 (1990). However, fees need not be apportioned if the claims involve common legal issues. Id. In that situation, the prevailing party is entitled to fees reasonably incurred in association with the claims on which she prevailed, as well as fees incurred on the other claims “if the party entitled to fees would have incurred roughly the same amount of fees, irrespective of the additional claim or claims.” Perry v. Hernandez, 265 Or App 146, 149 (2014). “Ordinarily, a court awards attorney fees to a litigant only if a statute or contract authorizes such an award.” Swett v. Bradbury, 335 Or 378, 381 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Guest v. Mannenbach
In determining whether writs of garnishment are delivered to the garnishee, ORS 18.652(1) “allows for delivery of a writ of garnishment by certified mail, return receipt requested” which “only requires that the receipt be returned signed not that it be returned signed by the garnishee personally; and the actual receipt is not required for effective delivery.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Hill v. Hill
Under ORCP 71A. “A clerical mistake is a mistake or omission that is not a ‘deliberate result or judicial reasoning and determination, regardless of whether it was made by the clerk, by counsel or by the judge.’” Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach, LLP v. Stoelk, 193 Or App 700, 707 (2004) (Quoting Hopkins and Hopkins, 102 Or App 655, 658-59, 796 (1990), rev den, 311 Or 87 (1991).)). “[A] court’s inherent authority to modify a judgment under ORCP 71 C exists only to make technical amendments, to correct trial court error, or to grant relief in “extraordinary circumstances,” such as fraud, duress, breach of fiduciary duty or gross inequity.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Romero v. Amburn
When deciding whether the discovery rule is applicable to a specific statute of limitations, the Court considers ORS 12.010, which states that actions must be initiated within the prescribed periods in the chapter after the cause of action has accrued, unless a different limitation is specified by statute. Moreover, ORS 12.080(1) mandates that any action for contract or liability, whether expressed or implied, must be initiated within six years of its accrual.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Schaefer v. Marion County
“The presence of a transportation facility or improvement shall not be a basis for an exception to allow residential, commercial, institutional, or industrial development on rural lands under this division or OAR 660-004-0022 and 660-004-0028.” OAR 660-012-0060(5).
OAR 660-012-0060(5) applies to any exception under OAR 660-004-0022 (for the specified types of development on rural lands), not just a subset of possible exceptions under OAR 660-004-0022.
- Land Use
Schroeder v. Board of Parole
A petitioner must "demonstrate - through something other than speculation - that the change in law created a risk that petitioner's term of incarceration would be extended beyond what it otherwise would have been." Morrison v. Board of Parole, 277 Or App 861, 866 (2016). "In the context of an exit interview, the procedures required by due process are minimal." Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 US 216, 220 (2011) (affirmed in Rivas v. Board of Parole, 272 Or App 248, 253-54 (2015)). "Procedures that permit an inmate to be heard and respond to the evidence against them, and that provide for a statement of reasons for the denial of parole, have been deemed constitutionally sufficient." Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 US 1, 16 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Forker
A trial court has broad discretion and as long as a court's decision falls within the range of permissible options available to it in the exercise of "broad discretion," the decision will be upheld. State v. Shaw, 338 Or 586, 615 (2005). "Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to impeach a witness regarding a 'collateral matter.'" State v. Gibson, 338 Or 560, 573 (2005). "A matter is collateral if it is not something that the cross-examining party would be entitled to prove as part of its case." Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. M. D. D.
ORS 174.120(1) states that the statutory time clock “exclude[es] the first day and include[es] the last day, unless the first day falls upon any legal holiday or on Saturday, in which case the last day is also excluded.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Taylor
Under ORS 161.07, guilty verdicts must merge when two crimes are committed against the same victims in the same criminal episode, and one is the predicate offense for the other. Martinez v. Cain, 458 P3d 670 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Wagner
Similarly to McCormack, the Court was permitted to sidestep answering whether the state’s authority to enforce hunting regulations against treaty hunters is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction because of the “conservation necessity standard” under the Bronson framework. “[I]f the tribe itself has enacted similar valid laws[,]” the state may enforce regulations against a treaty hunter. State v. Bronson, 122 Or App 493 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Wildlife Law
State v. Snodgrass
The legislative history of ORS 166.070(1)(c) shows that the legislature intended to criminalize spitting on a police officer regardless of whether it contacted the officer's skin directly or merely contacted the officer's clothes.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Brown v. Glaxosmithkline, LLC. and Providence Health System - Oregon
Considering the plain meaning of a "seller... engaged in the business of selling" a product, is one who transfers ownership of the product to another in exchange for valuable consideration, Hospitals that provide medication in exchange for valuable consideration can be liable for product liability under ORS 30.920.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Dep't. of Human Services v. T.J.N.
The party moving for dismissal has the burden to establish that a case is moot, which includes establishing (1) that there is a controversy between the parties, and (2) that the “decision being challenged on appeal will have no further practical effect on the rights of the parties.” Dep't. of Human Services v. A. B., 362 Or 412, 426 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Northwest Public Communications Council v. Qwest
The FCC has made clear that “consistent with section 276 and the Commission’s Payphone Orders, states may, but are not required to, order refunds for any period after April 15, 1997, that a BOC does not have NST-compliant rates in effect.” Clarification Order at ¶ 47 (italics in original). Moreover, the PUC has broad regulatory authority consisting of “powers and duties.” ORS 756.040(1). Within these powers and duties, the PUC can order refunds to “correct legal errors that lead to ‘unjust and unreasonable exactions.’” Gearhart v. PUC, 356 Or 216, 244, 339 P3d 904 (2014) (Gearhart II) (quoting ORS 756.040(1) and ORS 756.062(2)).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
S.E.G. v. Parker
“ORCP 54 B(3) requires a specific ‘notice and show cause procedure’ that affords a plaintiff 60 days’ notice, followed by ‘an opportunity to show that good cause exists to continue the proceeding as a pending case’ and ‘a determination by the court on the merits of that issue.’” Moore v. Ball, Janik & Novack, 120 Or App 466, 470 (1993). However, a trial court’s authority “to dismiss an action for want of prosecution is an inherent power, and it exists independently of statute or rule of court.” Reed v. First Nat. Bank of Gardiner, 194 Or 45, 55, (1952).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. A.B.K.
ORS 426.005(1)(f), provides, in part: “‘Person with mental illness’ means a person who, because of a mental disorder, is one or more of the following: “(A) Dangerous to self or others.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Breedwell
In determining whether a warrant is adequately descriptive, the court must consider, “when otherwise adequately descriptive warrant contains a clerical error, that error does not render the warrant insufficient where the executing officer is aware of that error and uses personal knowledge to remedy the incorrect information in the warrant.” State v. Kauppi, 360 Or 465 (2016). Furthermore, the “officer’s reliance on a magistrate’s probable-cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant he issues must be objectively reasonable, and it is clear that in some circumstances the officer will have no reasonable grounds for belief that the warrant was properly issued.” US v. Leon, 468 US 897 (1984).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Walker
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.” Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 US 51, 58, (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Wilcox
In determining whether officers seized defendant’s backpack, the court looked to case law and determined it “clearly indicate[s] that a ‘seizure’ of property occurs when police physically remove property from a person’s possession.” State v. Juarez-Godinez, 942 P2d 722 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Wood
ORS 138.105(1) provides, "[o]n appeal by a defendant, the appellate court has authority to review the judgment or order being appealed." "[O]nce final judgment in a criminal case is entered, its validity and regularity are presumed." State v. Jacob, 208 Or App 62, 67 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Kinzua Resources, LLC v. Dep't of Environmental Quality
ORS 459.268 states that “…under ORS 459.205 or, if the person who holds or last held the permit fails to comply with this section, the person owning or controlling the property on which the disposal site is located, shall close and maintain the site according to the requirements of this chapter….” (Emphasis added.) The Supreme Court defined “owning or controlling” as “possessing legal authority over the land which the landfill is located.” Kinzua Resources v. DEQ, 366 Or 674, 468 P3d 410 (2020) (Kinzua III).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Martinez-Munoz v. Kendal Merchandising
Claim preclusion is subject to an exception when “the decision maker expressly reserves for a party the right to maintain a second action or proceeding at the time the first determination is made, there is no preclusive effect.” Drews v. EBI Cos., 310 Or 134, 141 (1990) (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 20(1)(b) (1982)).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Bordeaux
Violations of ORS 509.006 do not require that the actions taken are completed or intentional, because “attempt to fish” was specifically included as part of the definition of “take.” ORS 506.006(12).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Copeland
ORS 165.540(1)(c) does not apply to “[a] person who records a conversation during a felony that endangers human life[.]” ORS 165.540(5)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Karim
“A person commits the offense of use of marijuana in a motor vehicle if the person consumes in any manner a marijuana item while in a motor vehicle when the motor vehicle is upon a highway.” ORS 811.482(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. LaCoe
A court’s authority to revoke probation based on a violation must be filed before the end of the probationary period even if the violation occurred while the probationbwas effective. A sentencing court’s authority to extend probation after its conclusion must be through a deliberate judicial act. State v. Miller, 244 Or App 642
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Mothershed
A trial court may order restitution upon proof of “(1) criminal activities, (2) economic damages, and (3) a causal relationship between the two.” State v. Smith, 291 Or App 785, 788, 420 P3d 644 (2018); ORS 137.106(1)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Scatamacchia
In determining whether there is an error, the court must “consider the instructions as a whole and in the context of the evidence and record at trial, including the parties’ theories of the case with respect to the various charges and defenses at issue.” State v. Payne, 366 Or. 588 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure