Oregon Supreme Court


January 1 summary

State v. Craigen

“Once an attorney is appointed or retained, there can be no interrogation of a defendant concerning the events surrounding the crime charged unless the attorney representing the defendant on that charge is notified and afforded a reasonable opportunity to attend.” State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 93, 672 P2d 1182 (1983).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

February 4 summaries

Arnold v. Kotek

Mandamus is an “‘extraordinary remedial process which is awarded not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of sound judicial discretion.’” See State ex rel Fidanque v. Paulus, 297 Or 711, 717, 688 P2d 1303 (1984).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

In re DuBoff

Under RPC 1.8(a), a lawyer who enters into a business transaction with a client must obtain the client’s informed consent by providing “in a writing signed by the client, [] the essential terms of the transaction…”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Professional Responsibility

Haas v. Estate of Mark Steven Carter

The but-for standard of causation is appropriate in multiple causation negligence cases, unless two causes concur to bring about an injury and either one of them, operating alone, would have caused the same result.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Lawrence v. Oregon State Fair Council

Under State v. Hitz, a party must not be “ambushed, or misled or denied an opportunity” to respond to an opposing party’s or court’s statements. State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183, 189, 766 P2d 373 (1988).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

March 2 summaries

Wilhelms v. Rosenblum

ORS 250.035(2)(a) requires ballot-title captions to “reasonably identify[y] the subject matter of the state measure. ORS 250.035(2)(b) requires that yes statements be “simple and understandable statement[s] . . . that describe[] the result if the state measure is approved.” ORS 250.035(2)(d) requires that the summaries “summarize[e] the state measure and its major effect.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

Guerrero-Perez v. Kelly

When a petitioner establishes that their conviction was based on a nonunanimous jury verdict, they are entitled to post-conviction relief. Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604 (2022).

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

April 2 summaries

State v. Mott

In deciding whether to grant a post-opinion motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals should weigh a number of factors including whether the motion is unopposed, whether the dismissal would allow a party to avoid legal consequences, and if there are compelling practical consequences the appealing party wishes to avoid. State v. Lasheski, 312 Or App 714, 721-22 P3d 1118 (2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

SAIF Corp. v. Coria

The board’s order imposing a penalty must “articulate a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusions it draws from them.” Jenkins v. Bd. of Parole, 335 P.3d. 828 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

May 3 summaries

State v. Living Essentials, LLC.

Under ORS 646.608(1)(b) and (1)(e), a business practice is unlawful if it “[c]auses likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, . . . approval, or certification of . . . goods” or it “[r]epresents that . . . goods . . . have . . . approval, characteristics, . . . uses, benefits, quantities or qualities that the . . . goods . . . do not have.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Business Law

Adelsperger v. Elkside Dev. LLC

“ORS 63.165 immunizes members and managers of an LLC from vicarious liability for the debts, obligations, and liabilities of that LLC. LLC members and managers, however, remain personally liable for their acts and omissions to the extent those acts or omissions would be actionable against the member or manager if that person were acting in individual capacity.” Cortez v. Nacco Materials Handling Group, 356 Or. 254, 280, 337 P3d 111 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

State v. A.R.H.

Under ORS 163A.030, “[t]he person who is the subject of the hearing has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the person is rehabilitated and does not pose a threat to the safety of the public.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

June 4 summaries

State v. Haley

Under ORS 164.205(1), a “separate unit” is determined by its structure, occupancy, function, layout, and appearance within a building.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Turay

A warrant for digital data meets the particularity requirement in the Oregon Constitution when it “describe[s] the information the state seeks…with as much specificity as reasonably possible under the circumstances” and does “not authorize a search that is broader than the supporting affidavit supplies probable cause to justify.” State v. Mansor, 363 Or 185, 222, 212, 421 P3d 323 (2018). When a defendant “establish[es] a minimal factual nexus between [a constitutional violation] and the challenged evidence” there is a presumption that the challenged evidence be suppressed, which can be rebutted only by establishing “that the challenged evidence was untainted by” the violation. State v. DeJong, 368 Or 640, 642, 497 P3d 710 (2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Pugin v. Garland

An offense may "relat[e] to obstruction of justice" under §1101(a)(43)(S) even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

State v. Lee

A warrant application satisfies the requirement in ORS 133.545(6) when it “particularly sets forth the facts and circumstances tending to show that the objects of the search are in the places . . . to be searched.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

July 1 summary

Bundy v. NuStar GP LLC

“If, after consideration of text, context, and legislative history, the intent of the legislature remains unclear, then the court may resort to general maxims of statutory construction to aid in resolving the remaining uncertainty.” PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 612 (1993).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

August 0 summaries

September 0 summaries

Back to Top