Where to Find Superseded Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) and the Oregon Bulletin

You can link to this Superseded OAR grid from our What’s New and our Document Index (under the letter O) pages and – wonk alert – see a picture of first page of the first Oregon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

Multnomah County Job: Executive Director, Office of Citizen Involvement

Job Title: Executive Director, Office of Citizen Involvement
Job Code: 9400-37
Opening Date/Time: Fri. 08/01/14 12:00 AM Pacific Time
Closing Date/Time: Sun. 08/31/14 11:59 PM Pacific Time
“About the The Office of Citizen Involvement (OCI) implements and manages programs and initiatives established by the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) to which it reports. Examples include Departmental Citizen Involvement Reviews, the Citizen Budget Advisory Committees, Outreach Diversity Workshops, topical forums, focus groups, Website, social media, and volunteer recruitment into policy roles. The CIC is composed of 15 volunteers who seek to ensure citizen involvement in county decision-making. The CIC does not concern itself with the merits of county issues, but rather with the processes that shape those issues....” [Link to full job description.]

Multnomah County Jobs
Multnomah County Job Openings

Oregon Texting as Hearsay, (alleged) Pimp (“promote prostitution”) Case (Court of Appeals)

State of Oregon v. John Elwood Causey, Jr., A148112, 265 Or App __ (2014) (Multnomah County Circuit Court, 100646533)

Excerpt from case:


“Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for attempting to promote prostitution, ORS 167.012(1)(d).On appeal, defendant assigns error to the admission into evidence of conversations recorded by an undercover police officer, printouts from a website that contained photos and phone numbers, and text messages from two women that were recovered from defendant’s cell phone. According to defendant, the admission of that evidence violated OEC 801 and defendant’s right to confrontation under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. We conclude that the trial court’s admission of the text messages sent from one of the women to defendant was error requiring that we reverse defendant’s convictions and remand for a new trial….” [Link to full case.]

From August 20, 2014, OJD Media Release:
State of Oregon v. John Elwood Causey, Jr. (De Muniz, S. J.)
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for attempting to promote prostitution, assigning error to the admission into evidence of, among other things, a series of text messages from a woman that was recovered from defendant’s cell phone. Defendant argues that the text messages are inadmissible hearsay and that their admission violated his right to confrontation under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. 8 Held: Because the text messages were out-of-court statements and their relevance depended on the truth of the content of the messages, the messages were hearsay and not admissible. Reversed and remanded.”

Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) homepage
OJD opinions homepage
Oregon Revised Statutes

(Apologies for graceless blog post title, but if you want to find this case in the future, and don’t have access to a good digest or index of cases ….)