Oregon Supreme Court

2022

January 0 summaries

February 1 summary

Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. Fasching

Eligibility for the business records exception under OEC 803(6) depends upon: (A) the record itself having the characteristics required by OEC 803(6) and (B) “evidence of the record-making practices of the business that created the record.” Allan v. Oceanside Lumber Co., 214 Or 27, 328 P2d 327 (1958).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

March 5 summaries

State v. McKinney/Shiffer

In the case of a bench trial, the trial court's failure to consider the culpable mental state for the serious physical injury element of an assault offense is not harmless. State v. Marrington, 355 Or 555, 565-66 (2003). Similarly, in the case of a jury trial, a jury instruction that fails to instruct the jury as to the culpable mental state for the serious physical injury element is not harmless. Hernandez v. Barbo Machinery Co., 327 Or 99, 106-07 (1998).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Ford

Ford presented the same issue decided in State v. Kyger, where the Court determined that “[t]he occurrence of multiple deaths is required for the completed crime of aggravated murder, but it is not required for the inchoate crime of attempted aggravated murder.” 369 Or 363 (2022).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Kyger

For purposes of ORS 163.095(1)(d), “[t]he occurrence of multiple deaths is required for the completed crime of aggravated murder, but it is not required for the inchoate crime of attempted aggravated murder.” State v. Kyger, 369 Or 363 (2022).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v Meiser

Under ORS 161.295, the affirmative defense of GEI does not require proof that a lack of capacity is due solely to a mental disease or defect, such that an antisocial personality disorder played no part in the incapacity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Davidson

ORS 137.719(2) provides that a non-presumptive sentence for a sex crime that the court may depart from subsection (1) and impose a guidelines sentence for “substantial and compelling reasons.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

April 8 summaries

State v. Kyger

“Attempted aggravated murder involving the circumstance set out in ORS 163.095(1)(d) requires that the Defendant (1) intentionally; (2) caused the death of another human being; (3) when there was more than one murder victim in the same criminal episode”; and as set out in ORS 161.405 requires (4) “that an actor have “intentionally” engaged in “conduct” that constitutes a “substantial step” toward the commission of the crime.” State v. Kyger, 369 Or 363, 369, 375.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Eklof v. Persson

Petitioner could not reasonably have raised Brady claims in the prior post-conviction proceeding. Accordingly, the Court held the Petitioner’s claims were not futile and the post-conviction court had abused its discretion in denying Petitioner leave to amend her complaint.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Johnson v. SAIF

ORS 656.214(1)(a) defines “impairment” as “the loss of use or function of a body part or system due to the compensable industrial injury.” ORS 656.214(1)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Jackson

The Court reasoned that the legislature intended ORS 19.420(3) to apply when the lost record is “practically necessary” for commencing an appeal, presenting the issues to the appellate court, or for the court to resolve the issues on appeal. The Court found that the issue required the court to review the “totality of the circumstances” and therefore held that Exhibit 15 was practically necessary to do so.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Oatney

Kastigar has been used to determine the scope of derivative use immunity, and can be violated in two ways. First, a Kastigar violation can occur if the government uses the immunized information “to motivate another witness to give incriminating testimony.” Second, a violation can occur if the content of a witness’s subsequent testimony is “‘shaped, altered, or affected’ by such exposure.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

City of Portland v. Bartlett

Under ORS 192.390, public records shall be made available after twenty-five years “notwithstanding ORS 192.355.” ORS 192.355(9)(a) creates an exemption for the disclosure of privileged documents.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Harris

The Wiretap Act requires a “principal prosecuting attorney” to authorize wiretaps and it prohibits courts from admitting evidence collected from a wiretap in violation of the act. 18 USC §§ 2515 - 2516.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Mason/Turrill v. Rosenblum

A ballot title must include a caption of “not more than 15 words that reasonably identifies the subject matter of the state measure.” ORS 250.035(2)(a). ORS 250.035(2)(d) specifies, a summary must provide a concise and impartial statement. 

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

May 3 summaries

State v. Rusen

Under ORS 138.105(9), “The appellate court has no authority to review any part of a sentence resulting from a stipulated sentencing agreement between the state and the defendant."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Stanton

“In order to accept a defendant’s waiver of counsel, a trial court must determine—and the record must reflect—that the waiver is both intentionally and knowingly made.” State v. Meyrick, 831 P.2d 666, 132 (Or. 1992).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Salsgiver/Iannarone v. Rosenblum

Pursuant to ORS 250.035, a ballot measure’s caption must state its actual major effect and its summary must be an impartial statement outlining the measure’s major effects.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

June 4 summaries

Abraham v. Corizon Health, Inc.

Pursuant to ORS 659A.400(2), “public accommodation does not include . . . a local correction facility . . . [or] an institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation that is in its nature distinctly private.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Robinette v. SAIF

ORS 656.214 defines “impairment” as “the loss of use or function of a body part or system due to the compensable industrial injury.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Querbach v. Dept. of Human Services

“ ‘Reasonable cause’ is a subjectively and objectively reasonable belief, given all of the circumstances and based on specific and articulable facts.” OAR 413-015-0115(58).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Lowell v. Wright

The First Amendment public comment defense applies when the speech involves a public concern and can be examined using a true-false analysis. Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or 706, 714 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

July 6 summaries

Dahlton v. Kyser

In a wrongful death claim, beneficiaries are not parties and therefore cannot be compelled to produce privileged medical information relating only to their own treatment arising from loss of decedent's society and companionship.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Gist v. ZoAn Management, Inc.

Under ORS 652.360(1), employers cannot create “special contract[s] or any other means” to circumvent statutes related to paying wages.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

State v. Benson

“To succeed on a claim of a due process violation caused by a preindictment delay, a defendant must ‘show that the delay actually prejudiced the defendant, and that the government culpably caused the delay.’” State v. Stokes, 350 Or 44, 64 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Hickey v. Scott

Under ORS 90.394(3), a valid termination notice must specify the amount of rent that must be paid to cure nonpayment, the amount must be precise and accurate.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Landlord Tenant

Lowell v. Medford School District. 549c

Absolute privilege applies when the public’s interest in functioning government is so great that it outweighs an individual’s interest in redress for reputational harm. Shearer v.  Lambert, 274 Or 449, 547 P2d 98 (1976).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Gray

Or Const, Art I, §11, of the Oregon Constitution entitles Defendant to have his counsel present in the grand jury room during his testimony.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

August 2 summaries

State v. Carlisle

A person commits third degree sexual abuse when “(a) [t]he person subjects another person to sexual contact and: (A) [t]he victim does not consent to the sexual contact[.]” ORS 163.415(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Hershey

Article I, section 17 of the Oregon Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases that historically used jury trials before the Oregon Constitution was enacted and “cases ‘of like nature.’” Horton v. Or. Health & Sci. Univ., 376 P3d 998 (Or. 2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Wildlife Law

September 1 summary

E.J.T. v. Jefferson County

The Vulnerable Person Act allows for a suit against a public body. Additionally, the child-abuse-reporting statutes do not create a liability for a public body.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

October 4 summaries

State v. Shedrick

Under ORS 161.095(2), to obtain a conviction, the state must prove that the defendant “acts with a culpable mental state with respect to each material element of the offense that necessarily requires a culpable mental state.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Murdoch v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles Servs. Div.

Under ORS 813.130 (2017), officers are required to inform drivers of the enumerated rights and consequences of refusing a breathalyzer and shall present the information “substantially in the form prepared by the Department of Transportation.” Additional explanation of legal consequences is not prohibited.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Burris

ORS 166.250(1) states “except as otherwise provided under ORS . . . 166.270 . . . a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly: . . . (C) [h]as been convicted of a felony[.]” ORS 166.270(4) provides exceptions to being a felon in possession of a firearm if the person has only been convicted of one felony and they finished their sentence more than fifteen years ago.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Chitwood

“[A] defendant asserting plain error must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s comments were so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard them would not have been sufficiently curative to assure the court . . . that the defendant received a fair trial.” State v. Montez, 324 Or. 343, 357 (1996).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

November 0 summaries


Back to Top