Oregon Supreme Court

2021

January 2 summaries

State v. Skillicorn

Evidence is barred by OEC 404(3) if “the chain of logical relevance” connecting the evidence to the fact it is proffered to prove relies on “an inference relating to a person’s character or propensities.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Pittman

In the context of Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, an act is not “testimonial” whenever its performance requires an individual to use his or her mental faculties. Rather, “[t]he information that an act communicates, and not the uncommunicated use of the mind, is what makes an act testimonial.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

February 2 summaries

Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Sulejmanagic

Under ORS 100.450(7)(c), a foreclosure action that has been filed and dismissed is treated as if it had never been filed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. Banks

A prosecutor may not make statements to a jury which imply that “additional evidence exists but cannot be presented” due to “our laws and rules of the court.” State v. Newburn, 178 Or 238, 241-42, 166 P2d 470 (1946). A trial court “accentuate[s] the error” if it overrules a defendant’s objection; reversal is required if the trial court fails to instruct the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s statement. Id.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

March 5 summaries

State v. Aguirre-Rodriguez

"Under Oregon law, restitution is to be awarded when a defendant has been convicted of a crime that results in economic damages to the victim and the state has presented evidence of those damages." ORS 137.106(1)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Link

The prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment has been interpreted to require a sentence “be graduated and proportioned to both the offender and the offense.” Miller v. Alabama, 567 US 460, 479, 132 S Ct 2455, 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012). “[I]mposition of a state’s most severe penalties on juvenile offenders cannot proceed as though they were not children.” Id. at 474.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Phillips

The text of OEC 609(3)(a) suggests that the legislature intended the exception to function as a two-part inquiry... The first step is to determine ‘the date of the conviction' and the date of 'release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction.’ The second step is to ask whether ‘[a] period of more than 15 years has elapsed since’ the later of those two dates. OEC 609(3)(a). If the answer to that second question is ‘no,’ then the conviction falls within the statutory window of admissibility.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Ramoz

ORCP 64 B(1) states that a new trial is warranted when a substantial right of the moving party is affected by an “[i]regularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court, or abuse of discretion, by which such party was prevented from having a fair trial.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Allianz Global Risks v. ACE Property & Casualty Ins. Co.

“[I]nterpretation of insurance policies is a question of law to be decided by the court… The court is to consider the plain meaning of the relevant policy terms; if a term is ambiguous, the court considers the context in which the term appears and then the context of the policy as a whole; if ambiguity remains, the term is construed against the drafter.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

April 4 summaries

Otnes v. PCC Structurals, Inc.

UTCR 21.080(5) authorizes a trial court to relate the filing date of a rejected document back to the original date the document was tendered for filing, if the filing party cures the deficiency identified by the trial court within three days.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State ex rel. Kotek v. Fagan

"A writ of mandamus may be issued to any inferior court, corporation, board, officer or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station[.]” ORS 34.110.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council

A claim of wrongful discharge requires a plaintiff to identify an important public policy that would be foiled if the plaintiff were discharged; “it is necessary to ‘find’ a public duty, not create one.” Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 333 Or 401, 409, 40 P3d 1059 (2002). “The reasonableness of an employee’s belief” about an employer’s violation of law, like the reasonableness determination in civil negligence claims, is a question of fact. Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 12, 734 P2d 1326 (1987).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Bert Brundige, LLC v. Department of Revenue

ORS 307.827 provides, “logging equipment” refers to equipment used in logging and reforestation; equipment specially designed for activities related to water quality and wildlife habitat protection; and “excavators used in logging road construction, maintenance, reconstruction or improvements.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

May 2 summaries

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

Orders denying requests for contested case proceedings are final orders on the contested case requests. ORS 183.310(b)(6). A request for a contested case proceeding is not itself a contested case; they are “other than contested cases.” ORS 183.310(2)(a); ORS 183.484.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Wolfe

After the enactment of Senate Bill 1013, the homicide of a child under 14 can only qualify as aggravated murder if it was premeditated. Or Laws 2019, ch 635, § 4; ORS 163.095(2)(b).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

June 0 summaries

July 0 summaries

August 0 summaries

September 0 summaries


Back to Top