Estate of Evans v. Dept. of Rev.
“If the resident's interest in the intangible property is sufficiently substantial, such that it is a source of actual or potential wealth to and cannot be dissociated from the resident, then his or her enjoyment of the benefits and protections offered by the state—including simply the benefit of living in an 'orderly, civilized society' for which the state is responsible, J.C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. at 444—is a sufficient justification for the state to impose its tax on that property.”
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Sherman v. Dept. of Human Services
The Oregon Tort Claims Act provides express statutory permission for child abuse suits to proceed without state immunity regardless of the time limitations imposed by ORS 12.115 because ORS 12.117 provides an exception for claims of this nature.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Sherman v. State
OTCA makes a public body liable for its tortious acts or omissions, subject only to the limitations set out in that act. ORS 30.265(1). By its terms, ORS 12.117 applies, in lieu of ORS 12.115, without exception or limitation, to actions “based on conduct that constitutes child abuse,” and we cannot read an exception for public entities or a limitation on the statute’s application into that statute. See Gaines, 346 Or at 173.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Hightower
To interpret the appellate court’s decision to remand a case, the trial court should focus not only on the explicit and implicit instructions provided in the appellate court’s opinion, but also on the entirety of the record as it relates to the identified error.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
In re Conry
Information that embarrasses the client falls within the scope of RPC 1.6(a), and is considered "revealed" even if there is a third party who possessed that information. Further, in order for disclosure to be protected under RPC 1.6(b)(4), the attorney must have "reasonably believe[d] [it] necessary."
Area(s) of Law:- Professional Responsibility
Deep Photonics Corp. v. LaChapelle
Under the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure and case law “the word ‘claim’ can mean the legal basis for a cause of action or the particular relief that a party seeks—or it can mean both the legal basis and the relief sought, together.” See M. K. F. v. Miramontes, 352 Or 401, 287 P3d 1045 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Dept. of Rev.
ORS 308.505(14) defines property so broadly as to include all property of the company that may be discovered.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Simi v. LTI Inc. - Lynden Inc.
Under ORS 656.262(7)(c), “If a condition is found compensable after claim closure, the insurer or self-insured employer shall reopen the claim for processing regarding that condition.”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation