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 4 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

Pike v. Cain

“[T]he issue was the constitutional adequacy of counsel’s investigation to support his strategy choice at the petitioner’s sentencing, at which the state would urge the court to sentence the petitioner as a dangerous offender.” See Richardson v. Belleque, 362 Or 236, 258 (2017).

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

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 2 summaries

State v. Haji

Under Article VII (Amended), section 5(6), “The district attorney may file an amended indictment or information whenever, by ruling of the court, an indictment or information is held to be defective in form.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

In Re Harris

The exception to the rule against the unauthorized practice of law provided under RPC 5.5(c) applies to an out-of-state lawyer in good standing who is awaiting reciprocal admission to the Oregon State Bar and meets at least one of the criteria set out in RPC 5.5(c)(1) to (5), even if he has accepted permanent employment in Oregon.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Professional Responsibility

June 1 summary

Elkhorn Baptist Church v. Brown

Under ORS 401.192(4), the “powers granted to the Governor” under a state of emergency declared under 401.165 continue until the “termination of the state of emergency” either by the Governor or by a joint resolution of the state legislature. Under ORS 433.441(4), the Governor’s powers related to a public health emergency are not subject to the twenty-eight-day limit, if a state of emergency under ORS 401.165 is declared.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

July 2 summaries

Pulito v. Oregon State Board of Nursing

Where there is no statutory definition “[the Court will] ordinarily look to the plain meaning of the statute’s text as a key first step in determining what particular terms mean.” Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 356 Or 282, 295, 337 P3d 768 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Arvidson v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.

“To constitute a finding that the compensation awarded to the Claimant should not be disallowed or reduced for purposes of [ORS 656.382(2)], such a finding must be made on the merits of the claim.” Timothy L. Williams, 46 Van Natta 2274 (1994)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

August 2 summaries

James v. State of Oregon

The contract rights of a member of the Public Employees Retirement System are impaired if: (1) an amendment functions retrospectively to decrease benefits attributable to work completed prior to the change, or (2) an amendment prospectively operates to reduce future benefits and the prior offer was irrevocable. Moro v. State of Oregon, 357 Or 167, 202-207, 351 P3d 1 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Summerfield v. Oregon Liquor Control Comission

“(1) A worker who has sustained a compensable injury and is disabled from performing the duties of the worker’s former regular employment shall, upon demand, be reemployed by the worker’s employer at employment which is available and suitable." ORS 659A.046. “

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

September 3 summaries

State v. Weaver

“[T]hreats against witnesses are intolerable. Substantial government interference with a defense witness’ free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process rights of the defendant.” United States v. Goodwin, 625 F2d 693, 703 (5th Cir 1980).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

City of Damascus v. State of Oregon

ORS 221.610 and ORS 221.621 set out the requirements for elections. Additionally, a legislature may pass a retroactive law unless it impairs a right of contract or vested right, and home rule provisions provide that cities may supply the manner of utilizing the initiative and referendum powers as to their municipal legislation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

State ex rel Rosenblum v. Nisley

Under ORS 236.010 (1)(g), an office becomes vacant if the “incumbent ceases to possess any other qualification required for election or appointment to such office.” Under ORS 8.630, a district attorney must be admitted to practice law in Oregon.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Election Law

October 1 summary

Chernaik v. Brown

The public trust doctrine, a common law doctrine, applies to “navigable waterways” and the lands below such waterways, capable of expanding to include natural resources.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

November 1 summary

State v. Morales

“[F]unds paid by and belonging to a third party cannot be the sole basis for a finding that a defendant has the 'ability to pay' court-ordered costs” because the trial court must still go through an inquiry to see if the defendant has the ability to pay fees or costs under ORS 161.665.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

December 2 summaries

Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun.

Under ORS 183.497(1)(a), “the court may…allow a petitioner reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if the court finds in favor of the petitioner.” Under ORS 20.075(1)-(2), “what counts as ‘reasonable attorney fees' is an exercise of judicial discretion based on the statutory factors” that are listed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Ciraulo

“[I]nstructing the jury that it could return a non-unanimous guilty verdict [is] not structural error [w]here a jury poll reveals that the jury unanimously found the defendant guilty of the charged offense[s], the nonunanimous jury instruction [can] be held harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 319-20 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Back to Top