Oregon Supreme Court

Opinions Filed in December 2015

ODOT v. Alderwoods

When governmental action interferes with an abutting landowner's right of access for the purpose of ensuring the safe use of a public road, and the abutting landowner retains reasonable access to its property, no compensable taking of the property owner's right of access occurs.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Bonilla

A consent search is justified only if someone who had actual authority gave consent. Fourth Amendment principles of apparent authority are inapplicable because the Fourth Amendment is based on different principles than the underlying principles of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela

Under ORS 163.575(1)(b), a criminal defendant may be charged with child endangerment if that defendant knowingly puts a minor in a place where the principal and substantial use of that place is to facilitate unlawful drug activity, including possession of drugs.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Alfieri v. Solomon

Under ORS 36.110(7)(a), whether a communication is a confidential “mediation communication” under ORS 36.220 turns on three factors: (1) whether it is a “communication,” (2) its connection to a “mediation,” and (3) the identity of the recipient. Private discussions between a mediating party and his attorney that occur outside mediation proceedings, before or after a settlement agreement has been signed, are not “mediation communications,” even if they do relate to what transpires in the mediation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution

Broadway Cab LLC v. Employment Dept.

A person can be considered an employee even when wages are paid directly from a third party receiving a service and not from the putative employer.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Moro v. State of Oregon

In complex cases with multiple parties with different requests for attorney’s fees and costs, it is appropriate for the Court to appoint a special master to make findings of fact and recommendations for the reasonable allocation of attorney’s fees and costs for each party.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Roberts v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc.

Under the test articulated in The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., forum selection bylaws are presumptively valid absent a showing that enforcing the bylaw would be unreasonable, that the bylaw was passed as a result of fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power, or that enforcement of the bylaw would contravene public policy in jurisdiction in which the suit was brought. Under Oregon law and the standard announced in Reeves v. Chem. Industrial Co., forum selection bylaws are presumptively valid unless enforcement would be unfair or unreasonable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

State v. Agee

Under the framework the Supreme Court articulated in Hall v. Florida, the consensus in the psychological community under DSM-5 is that an individual’s ability and success in adapting and adjusting to daily life is central to the framework of determining intellectual disability, not strict adherence to standardized intellectual tests. In order to satisfy the Eighth Amendment requirements of ORS 163.150(1)(b), a defendant is allowed to present to a sentencing jury any relevant evidence of mitigating factors of the crime, including mental capacity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Back to Top