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 6 summaries
Buel/Markley v. Rosenblum
In reviewing a ballot title, the court determines if the ballot title provided a concise and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure. Priestly v. Paulus, 297 Or. 141, 145 (1979). A court will not modify an explanatory statement unless the insufficiency extends beyond reasonable argument. Sizemore v. Myers, 327 Or. 456, 467 (1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Ballot Titles
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
Busch v. McInnis Waste Systems, Inc.
The legislature must act in a sufficient reason to counterbalance Art. 1, § 10’s substantive right that a person injured has a right to remedy those injuries. Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or. 168, 376 P.3d 998 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
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
State v. Bolton
ORS 137.101 operates to distribute damages to victims of a crime but permits the sentencing court to redirect money from penalty fines and the sentencing court’s authority “need not be calibrated to—or limited to—the economic damages sustained by the victim.” State v. Garlitz, 287 Or App 372, 377 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
In Re Long
The Rules of Professional Conduct allow for alternative fee agreements that include an “earned on receipt” clause, however, the agreement must also stipulate that “the client may discharge the lawyer at any time and in that event may be entitled to a refund of all or part of the fee if the services for which the fee was paid are not completed.” RPC 1.5(c)(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Professional Responsibility
August 3 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
State v. Haltom
Mental state definitions applicable to conduct don’t just apply to particular body movements, they apply more broadly to additional elements of that nature – such as the essential character – of a prohibited act. State v. Simonov, 358 Or. 531, 540-41 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal 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 4 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
Rundgren v. Hood River County
The legislature's intent under ORS 92.170(1)(d) is for the eligibility of correction to be determined by whether a licensed surveyor could ascertain of an error.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
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