OJIN and OECI Access in Oregon County Law Libraries

The following Oregon County Law Libraries have in-library public, or staff-assisted, access to OJIN, OECI, or ACMS (court dockets). (But these locations do not necessarily have access to the full-text of filed documents. You may need visit the Circuit Court records offices for those documents.)

Contact information for the following Oregon county law libraries is at the OCCLL website.

Clackamas (OJIN & OECI)
Josephine (OJIN & OECI)
Lane (OJIN & OECI)
Marion (OJIN & OECI & ACMS)
Multnomah (OJIN & OECI)

The other county law libraries do not have these court records database, which is not to say you can’t ask your court’s Trial Court Administrator or Presiding Judge if they would allow for access from your county law library.

For more information, link to OJCIN OnLine (Oregon Judicial Case Information Network) and the OJD eCourt homepage.

Happy 9th Birthday Oregon Legal Research Blog

My first (and truly sad) Oregon Legal Research blog post was written 9 years ago – and this is post number 3,122. I’ve come a long way since then, with lots of help from co-workers, managers, and most of all, the fabulous Legal Information to the Public people at Tim Stanley’s Justia, who brought us out of the blogging dark ages, with technical, hosting, and moral support.

We need to start planning for a 10th birthday celebration!

Not Dead Yet: Santa Claus, Yogi Berra, and Source Verification (Churchill not Reagan)

No, Virginia, you can’t believe anything you read “on the Internet,” except of course that there is a Santa Claus.

Yogi Berra is still alive.

And, from the Net for Lawyers blogThe ‘Death’ of Judd Nelson, Eddie Murphy, Jeff Goldblum, et al: The Importance of Verifying Sources on the Internet”

And, last but not least, Mr. Churchill came before Mr. Reagan with an admonition to verify sources.

Ouch! Another Lesson in Statutory Interpretation: Oregon Court of Appeals Pulls Out its Hair: State v. Lewis (2014)

State v. Lewis (A152266, 2014) Multnomah County Circuit Court (111235241)

We conclude that the state failed to present sufficient evidence that the victim in this case suffered “physical injury,” as required by ORS 163.160(1)(a)….

As noted, ORS 163.160(1)(a) provides that, “[a] person commits the crime of assault in the fourth degree if the person * * * [i]ntentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes physical injury to another.” “Physical injury” is, in turn, defined, in turn, as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.” ORS 161.015(7). Defendant contends that the state failed to present sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim suffered either “impairment of physical condition” or “substantial pain” from having her hair pulled out. We address each contention in turn….
….
We agree with defendant that, under the circumstances of this case, the state has not presented sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim suffered an “impairment of physical condition” as a result of having hair pulled out of her head….” [Link to full case.]

Statutes discussed: ORS 7 163.160(1)(a) and ORS 161.015(7)

Landlord-Tenant Law Guide (from the Law Library of Congress)

Just because landlord-tenant law is state-specific and local law for most of us mere mortals doesn’t mean there aren’t some excellent treatises and resources on the subject for those times we need to read about multi-state landlord-tenant practices and policies. If that is where your research is taking you, mosey over to the LLLoC blog post:

Landlord-Tenant Law: A Beginner’s Guide

Oregon Lawyers: What is an “of Counsel” Relationship?

From the PLF Law Practice Management blog: “I Say Of Counsel You Say …” (posted 10/13/2014)

Of Counsel relationships remain a strong area of interest for lawyers who are drawn to the idea of creating a professional affiliation. In that quest, there are many misunderstandings about what an of counsel relationship is ….” [Link to LPM blog post.]

Legal Research Class: City of Damascus v. Henry R. Brown, Jr. (Oregon Court of Appeals, 2014)

I could use this case to teach an entire course on Oregon legal research to lawyers, law students, legislators, and self-represented litigants:

City of Damascus v. Henry R. Brown, Jr. (A156920)

ARMSTRONG, P. J.
This case concerns the constitutionality of a bill passed by the 2014 Oregon Legislative Assembly, House Bill (HB) 4029, which permits landowners with property located on the boundary of the City of Damascus to withdraw that property from the jurisdiction of the city….

After consolidating the cases, we requested that the parties also address whether the petitions present us with a justiciable controversy, including whether petitioners have standing, whether the petitions are moot, and whether the parties are adverse….

On the merits of the petitions in GDI and Patton, we conclude that HB 4029 is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to private individuals because the legislation delegates to interested landowners the authority to determine the city’s boundary and to find the facts necessary to make that determination without imposing any meaningful procedural safeguards on the landowners’ fact-finding function. Accordingly, we reverse the GDI and Patton withdrawals….

City of Damascus v. Henry R. Brown, Jr. (A156920 – Agency/Board/Other)

In A156922 and A156923, reversed on cross-petition; in A156920, A156921, A156922, A156923, A156963, A156964, A156982, A156983, A156984, A157037, A157042, A157043, A157044, A157045, A157046, A157047, A157130, A157166, A157167, A157345, A157455, A157456, A157457, petition dismissed.