Oregon Supreme Court

Opinions Filed in February 2020

Eddy v. Anderson

“'[I]f the landlord neither knew nor reasonably should have known of the condition that constituted noncompliance,’ and the 'tenant knew or reasonably should have known of the condition and failed to give actual notice to the landlord in a reasonable time prior’ to the damage, the tenant is not 'entitled to recover damages’ for the landlord’s noncompliance with the habitability requirements.” ORS 90.360(2). ORS 90.370(1)(a) requires a tenant to “prove that[,] prior to the filing of the landlord’s action[,] the landlord reasonably had or should have had knowledge or had received actual notice of the facts that constitute the tenant’s counterclaim.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Landlord Tenant

Martinez v. Cain

“When the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an element that the others do not, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are separate statutory violations.” ORS 161.067(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Iseli

Under OEC 804(1)(e), a witness is unavailable in situations where the declarant "is absent from the hearing and the proponent of the declarant's statement has been unable to procure the declarant's attendance by process or other reasonable means."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Back to Top