Oregon Supreme Court

2020

January 0 summaries

February 3 summaries

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

March 0 summaries

April 3 summaries

Citizens for Resp. Devel. in The Dalles v. Walmart

Under Morse v. Oregon Division of State Lands, 285 Or 197, 204 (1979), while issuing a permit pursuant ORS § 196.825, “public need” for the proposed project only needs to be weighed when the project “unreasonably interferes with the paramount policy of the state,” however, the “unreasonably interferes” standard always applies.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Linn County v. Brown

Under Article XI, section 15(2)(c), of the Oregon Constitution, a “program” is “specific ‘services’ that a ‘local government’ is to ‘perform’ for ‘persons, government agencies or the public generally’” and does not include a statutory policy enacted by the legislature.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Multnomah County v. Mehrwein

Under Article 1, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution, laws restricting speech are facially unconstitutional only if "written in terms directed at the substance of [speech]" unless "within some historical exception." State v. Robertson, 293 Or 402, 412 (1982).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

May 0 summaries

June 0 summaries

July 0 summaries

August 0 summaries

September 0 summaries

October 0 summaries

November 0 summaries


Back to Top