Lutz v. Rosenblum
Under ORS 250.035(2), the caption, result statements, and summary of ballot measures must succinctly and clearly identify the subject matter, purpose, and major effect of the proposed measure.
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
State v. Stewart
To prove that a delivery "is for consideration" under ORS 475.900(2)(a), the State is required to offer evidence that a defendant either entered into an agreement to sell or completed a sale of the specified drug. Evidence that a defendant possessed the drug with intent to sell them is insufficient.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Markley/Lutz v. Rosenblum
The “subject matter” of a ballot title is “the ‘actual major effect’ of a measure or, if the measure has more than one major effect, all such effects (to the limit of the available words).” Lavey v. Kroger, 350 Or 559, 563, 258 P3d 1194 (2011); ORS 250.035(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Ballot Titles
Barbara Ellison v. Department of Revenue, State of Oregon
When revision of an opinion would not bring into question the opinion's reasoning or result and could foreclose another court, modification is allowed. Chart Development Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 16 OTR 9, 14-15 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Behrle v. Taylor, Superintendent Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution
When it becomes clear in the course of a judicial proceeding that resolving the merits of a claim “no longer will have a practical effect on or concerning the rights of the parties,” the case is moot. Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402, 406, 848 P2d 1194 (1993)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Tena
Under OEC 404(3), in order to admit evidence of violent behavior for non-propensity purposes, the state must "show some substantial connecting link between the two acts," that is, between the other act and the charged act. State v. Flett, 234 Or 124, 380 P2d 634 (1963).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law