Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc.
Under comparative negligence, if a defendant wants to establish that a co-defendant is responsible for more of the fault based on facts not pleaded by the plaintiff, the defendant must plead the new facts as an affirmative defense in their answer.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Cloutier
Under ORS 138.050, a defendant who entered a no contest plea is unable to appeal the judgment, unless it is “unconstitutionally cruel and unusual” or “exceeds the maximum allowable by law,” with the maximum referring to the maximum amount allowable to sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Davis
A defendant may introduce evidence of prior injury to demonstrate the possibility the harm did not occur at the time in question. However, such evidence may only be admitted if valid under OEC 701.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Farmers Ins. Co. v. Mowry
The court affirmed Collins v. Farmers Ins. Co. as stare decisis that that exclusion clauses within a motor vehicle insurance policy that eliminated coverage of one insured against another insured of the same policy are unenforceable to the extent that they failed to provide the minimum coverage required by law.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Ryan
In order to challenge Oregon’s stalking protective order statute on free speech grounds, a defendant must first successfully challenge the underlying protective order.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Drollinger v. Mallon
Exoneration is a prerequisite for bringing a legal malpractice claim against a defendant’s trial lawyer, but not for bringing a legal malpractice claim against post-conviction counsel.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State ex rel Engweiler v. Felton
The parole board exceeded its statutory authority by creating intermediate hearings for those convicted of juvenile aggravated murder and the parole board has a legal duty to grant parole release hearings to the defendants.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Baker
To establish whether a police officer satisfied the reasonableness requirement of the four-part “emergency aid exception” test to the warrantless search exception of the Oregon Constitution, the court should examine whether the police officer had an objectively reasonable belief, based on articulable facts that a warrantless entry was needed to aid others, prevent harm from occurring to others, or cease harm to others.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure