Oregon Supreme Court

Opinions Filed in October 2012

Assoc. Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condo v. Warren

A motion for reconsideration of a summary judgement does not constitute a motion for a new trial within the meaning of ORS 19.255(2) and ORCP 64.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Pitt

Prior bad act evidence is not admissible to bolster a victim's credibility in identifying her abuser if there is ongoing contact between the victim and defendant. Prior bad act evidence is also not admissible to prove intent until facts establishing the charged conduct have been introduced.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

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

State v. Burgess

The State is precluded from raising a legal theory on appeal that was not argued at the trial level because the defendant may have developed the record differently had the issue been addressed at trial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Rogers

An empaneling of an anonymous jury requires a finding that there are strong and particular grounds for jury identity protection. When the State relies on a defendant's history as a basis for its decision to impose capital punishment, it must demonstrate a close link between that history and defendant's future dangerousness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Halperin v. Pitts

Pursuant to ORS 20.080(2), defendants who prevail in small tort actions do not need to have delivered a prelitigation demand letter in order to obtain attorney fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Hazell v. Brown

Campaign finance reform laws, contained within Measure 47, limiting campaign contributions, are inoperable until such time that the Oregon Constitution is amended to grant these provisions a constitutional basis.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Back to Top