Oregon Supreme Court

Opinions Filed in April 2019

Gadalean v. SAIF

Under ORS 656.005(30), a "'worker' means any person, including a minor whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, who engages to furnish services for a remuneration, subject to the direct control of an employer."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Chavez v. State of Oregon

Pursuant to ORS 138.510(3), "[a] petition pursuant to ORS 138.510 to 138.680 must be filed within two years of the [date that the challenged conviction became final], unless the court on hearing a subsequent petition finds grounds for relief asserted which could not reasonably have been raised in the original or amended petition."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Sloan v. Providence Health System-Oregon

"Even when a special relationship is the basis for the duty of care owed by one person to another . . . if the special relationship does not prescribe a particular scope of duty, then ‘common law principles of reasonable care and foreseeability of harm are relevant.’” Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 336 Or 329, 342, 83 P3d 322 (2004).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Black

“The rule against vouching prohibits a witness from making a direct comment, or one that is tantamount to a direct comment, on another witness’s credibility.” State v. Beauvais, 357 Or 524, 545, 354 P3d 680 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc.

“Claims subject to *** ORS chapter 656” under ORS 31.710(1) “most plausibly encompasses an exception” for claims against noncomplying employers and third parties, and the context of ORS 31.710(1), as part of “tort reform” enacted in 1987, does not indicate the damages cap “was intended to apply to … claims in ORS chapter 656.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Back to Top