“The Oregon Justice Resource Center assists with trial and appellate litigation on behalf of indigent, prisoner, and low-income clients in federal and state courts on a range of civil liberties and civil rights matters, including but not limited to the death penalty, immigrant rights, and unfair procedural barriers to the courts. Donate to the OJRC....” [Link to OJRC.]
Read about the changes to the Oregon Public Guardian and Conservator program for people with “inadequate resources,” e.g. people without relatives or friends willing or able to serve as guardians or conservators.
2014 SB 1553 (enrolled bill) (as of today is still awaiting the Governor’s signature):
Relating to services for persons with inadequate resources; creating new provisions; amending ORS 125.240, 125.410, 125.700, 125.705, 125.710, 125.715, 125.720, 125.725, 125.730, 441.109, 441.137 and 441.153; and declaring an emergency
“The Oregon Cannabis Industry Association is hosting an informative seminar providing Oregon cannabis industry members, and those looking to enter the industry, with an opportunity to learn from professionals across the legal spectrum. Attorneys and professionals will cover basic business law, employment law, tax law and more. A representative from the Oregon Health Authority will be on hand to answer questions about the application process and rules for the upcoming state-licensed medical marijuana facilities.
Tickets are $150. (Approval for CLE credits pending for practicing Oregon attorneys.)….”
Link to Oregon Cannabis Industry Association (OCIA) program webpage for more information.
If you’ve ever come across one of these “see Preface” notes in the ORS, you might be wondering where you can find that Preface:
Example: “192.715 to 192.760 were enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but were not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 192 or any series therin by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.“
In the print, this is easy. You just open up Volume 1 and start reading.
Online, it’s almost as easy, assuming the link’s location doesn’t move or rot: From the Bills and Laws page, look for the ORS Documents box in the upper right hand corner. One of those documents will link you to the “Oregon Revised Statutes Preface.”
In the Preface, look for #2, under the heading, “Changes in text of Acts,” where it says:
“(2) … Not added to and made a part of.” Notes may indicate that a particular ORS section was not added to and made a part of the ORS chapter or series in which the section appears. These notes mean that the placement of the section was editorial and not by legislative action. Notes also are used when the series references are either too numerous or too complex to bear further adjustment. However, the note does not mean that the section not added to a series or a chapter is any less the law. The note is intended only to remind the user that definitions, penalties and other references to the series should be examined carefully to determine whether they apply to the noted section.
For example, Oregon Revised Statutes contains chapter 137 relating to judgment, execution, parole and probation. A law relating to any of those subjects may be enacted but not legislatively added to ORS chapter 137, even though the section clearly belongs with the related materials found in that chapter. The Legislative Counsel compiles the section where it logically belongs and provides the “not added to” note.“
I have about 150 draft blog posts and no time to prep them for viewing, but some info just has to rise to the top:
A(nother) frustrated librarian has created this quick and dirty website to superseded ORS, Historical ORS, which can supplement the info on our Where are Superseded (Archived) Oregon Revised Statutes?
You see, lawyers (and their clients) NEED old ORSs and old ORCPs. You don’t even need to know what those are to understand that if your lawyer can’t find those and other similar types of resources easily and quickly, well, your bill goes up, for example:
Your lawyer needs a 1985 ORS (or a legislative report or a full legislative history):
1) Finds it in 3 minutes: that costs you nothing or it maybe a few bucks
2) Finds it in 30 minutes: what is half your attorney’s hourly billing rate? $60, $100, $300
3) Takes 60 minutes or more to find it: YIKES
4) Multiply by however many times your lawyer has to find another elusive document.
(You can apply this simple formula to a lot of research your lawyer needs to do. The costs can go up especially high if your lawyer doesn’t have access to a law librarian or a paralegal or other legal assistant who probably bills less than the lawyer does, or who might find the resource in a fraction of the time. And imagine how high the cost is if your lawyer doesn’t even find what opposing counsel finds. Hmmm?)
The Oregon Legislature’s website upgrade is making a lot of people crazy, for good reason. And even though we do sympathize (upgrades can be brutal), and know it will be terrific in the end, especially OLIS, it has been beyond aggravating, to the point that people’s legal bills are reflecting the problem.
If you care, let your legislators know. Please don’t complain to me. I’m part of the solution, and I’ve done my part: Gutbusters
If you want to Find Your Legislator, use the Find Your Legislator link on the Oregon Legislature’s homepage, not the Citizen Engagement webpage. (It might show up there eventually, but for now, use the homepage.)
And use Historical ORS
On January 7, 2014, the Supreme Court:
“1. Allowed petitions for review in:
Myles A. Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc. (S061821) (A148231) (appeal from Dechutes County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 258 Or App 390, 310 P3d 692 (2013)).
Plaintiff, Myles A. Bagley, has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant, Mt. Bachelor, Inc., based on defendant’s affirmative defense of release, with respect to plaintiff’s negligence action against defendant for injuries he received while snowboarding over a jump in defendant’s terrain park.
On review, the issues are:
(1) Does a negligence liability release aeement that is imposed as a nonnegotiable condition of entry to a ski area violate public policy?
(2) Is such a release agreement unconscionable under Oregon law?“
Update update (ahem) to the “Oregon’s Legal Guide for Grandparents and Other Relatives Raising Children” handbook:
I have checked with the lead editor of “Oregon’s Legal Guide for Grandparents and Other Relatives Raising Children” and she confirmed that the 2012 edition is most recent one and an update isn’t likely much before 2015.
See Justice Landau’s concurring opinion in State of Oregon v. Ian George Vanornum (SC S060715), decided December 27, 2013 (on page PDF page 24 or Opinion page 23 or Concurring page 1)
“LANDAU, J., concurring. I write separately to address an issue that the parties did not raise, but that nevertheless made a difference in the outcome of this case and could well make a difference in future cases. That issue concerns the nature of the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure — specifically, whether they are statutes. In brief, some are statutes, and some are not. It depends on whether they were affirmatively enacted into law by the legislature….” [Link to full opinion.]
Washington State is the latest state to create a Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) professional classification.
For an Oregon perspective, the December 2013 issue, page 12, of the Multnomah Lawyer has an article on the Washington State LLLT.