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)

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)

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.

Where to Find Superseded Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) and the Oregon Bulletin

You can link to this Superseded OAR grid from our What’s New and our Document Index (under the letter O) pages and – wonk alert – see a picture of first page of the first Oregon Administrative Rule Bulletin, from May 1, 1958.

Thank you to all the librarians who helped me compile this grid!

And remember, It’s Not All Online.

Oregon Supreme Court: Retired Public Servants, Health Care, and Private Rights of Action under ORS 243.303

Ronald Doyle et al. v. City of Medford et al., (TC 0801317) (CA A147497) (SC S061463)

On review from the Court of Appeals in an appeal from the Jackson County Circuit Court, Mark S. Schiveley, Judge. 256 Or App 625, 303 P3d 346 (2013). The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The case is remanded to that court for further proceedings. Opinion of the Court by Justice David V. Brewer. Justice Martha L. Walters concurred and filed an opinion, in which Justice Richard C. Baldwin joined.

Today, the Oregon Supreme Court held that, in enacting ORS 243.303(2), which requires local governments to make available to retired employees, “insofar as and to the extent possible,” the health care insurance coverage available to current officers and employees of the local government, the legislature did not expressly or impliedly intend to create a private right of action for the enforcement of that duty. The Court also declined to exercise its common-law authority to provide such a right of action sounding in tort….” [Link to full case, Opinions Issued in 2014, and the October 2, 2014, Supreme Court Opinions Media Release.]

Oregon Council on Court Procedures

The Council on Court Procedures is changing internet hosts, but the domain and the content remain (essentially) the same, with invaluable information on the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure. There will be some adjustments, and you may need to fix your links, as the migration progresses, but time heals all wobbles, or maybe that’s wobbles all heels.

What is a Grand Bargain?

It seems that everywhere one turns, Congress, state legislators, and local elected officials are making “Grand Bargains.” So, what is a Grand Bargain?

A “bargain” is, generally speaking (in “dictionary” language), an agreement by one party to buy and another to sell. (There must also be “consideration,” but that is another topic of discussion.) See definitions in the Free Dictionary and in the free, online Merriam-Webster.

Grand” means, simply speaking, large, in size or scope.
See definitions in the Free Dictionary and in the free, online Merriam-Webster.

Some say it all began with Congress and President Obama and tax and debt Grand Bargains, and we’ve seen it here in Oregon with land use and large corporations and the state, but whenever someone says “that’s where it all began,” put on your Skeptics Hat. Grand Bargains may have begun with Moses and the Ten Commandments, or maybe with Noah or Job, or the Easter Island inhabitants, Stonehenge, or with the Big Bang, perhaps the grandest bargain of them all. And then again, maybe it began with Ptolemy, and his Great Treatise.

In any event, whenever anyone begins to talk about making a Grand Bargain, it never hurts to ask who is giving what to whom in exchange for how much – and, of course, what’s in it for you.

Oregon’s Multnomah Law Library Catalog is Now Online

Oregon’s Multnomah Law Library* is one of the state’s best legal research collections – and you can now search their catalog online: Multnomah Law Library’s Catalog

For links to other Oregon state, county, and academic law libraries, link to the directory of Oregon county law libraries and to Oregon Law Libraries: Hours and Types of Service.

*Are you wondering why the Multnomah Law Library isn’t called the Multnomah County Law Library? It’s because the law library is a nonprofit, not a county department, unlike other Oregon county law libraries. (Read a brief history of the Oregon county law libraries.)

Superseded ORS on the Oregon Legislature’s Website: 1953-1981

The Oregon Legislature now has 1953-1981 ORS on their website. Stay tuned for more superseded ORS to be added to the online collection.

Indirect link: Visit the ORS Archives 1999-2011 webpage and click on the text (in tiny print): “Older editions of the ORS are available here and more are being added as time and resources allow.”

More about the Gutbuster scanning project we have been working on with Legislative Counsel, including a picture of a Gutbuster.

Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) Ombudsmen Office

Complaints, concerns, and questions for DHS? Can’t get an answer from department personnel?

Visit the Governor’s Advocacy Office, which includes the Department of Human Services Ombudsmen, the Children’s Ombudsman, and the DHS Client Complaint or Report of Discrimination process.