Articles Posted in State Government & Legal Resources

Published on:

By

Our new print set of the 2010 Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) came today – it’s ecru. We always try and guess the color of the binding (as we do with the ORS).

(The SoS and the Legislature should get a little action going with pre-publication binding-color betting – more fun than the lottery for us wonkish types. This is about as exciting as it gets with law library décor action when you work in the public sector.)

I was hoping for gold/yellow binding; colleagues were going for greens and blues. My point: any color is better than no color (ecru?). It is such dry reading that one needs a warm glow to keep awake while reading it.

Published on:

By

Right to Counsel and the Right to Remain Silent AND the Importance of Reading the Full Case

There are no shortcuts to thorough legal research:

The Oregon Court of Appeals OJD Media Release summary ( 3/3/10), says this, which is concise and perfectly accurate:

Published on:

By

Online Dating: On the Internet, no one knows you’re a crumbum:

The Oregon Attorney General posted this a few days before Valentine’s Day:

He Loves Me; He’s Trying To Steal My Money; He Loves Me . . .,” February 11, 2010

Published on:

By

Attorney General’s Government Transparency Initiative

Excerpt:

Government transparency is vital to a healthy democracy. Public scrutiny helps ensure that government works for the people and spends their tax dollars wisely. The best way to hold government accountable is to make government records and public meetings accessible to the people. That’s why I’ve made enforcement of government transparency laws a major priority. Here are some major changes I recently put in place:

Published on:

By

There are a number of procedural twists and turns to follow, so please read the entire case:

McCollum V. Kmart (SC S057609) (En Banc), filed February 19, 2010:

Excerpts: “This is a personal injury case in which defendant appealed an order granting plaintiff a new trial. The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court’s stated grounds for ordering a new trial, as well as certain alternative grounds urged by plaintiff to support the order, were not adequate bases for that relief. McCollum v. Kmart Corporation, 228 Or App 101, 207 P3d 1200 (2009) (McCollum II). The Court of Appeals therefore reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions to reinstate the judgment for defendant. Id. at 123….

On December 4, 2006, the trial court signed and filed an order granting plaintiff’s motion for new trial. On that same date, the trial court also signed and filed a letter opinion addressed to counsel for the parties in which the court explained the basis for its decision. On the second and last page of the letter opinion, the letter stated: “Enclosed is a conformed copy of the Court’s Order Allowing New Trial.” The letter also had the notation “enclosure” in a footer on the last page.

The other issue that has arisen with some frequency is what form of document will constitute an “order.” More specifically, the question has been whether a memorandum (or letter) opinion constitutes an order. This court’s answer has been: it does not. Ernst, 208 Or at 451. In Ernst, we reasoned that, in general, an opinion (written or oral) is not the equivalent of an order. Id. (citing cases). Moreover, an appeal can be taken only from a “final appealable order,” not from an “opinion.” Id.

Published on:

By

Oregon 2010 HB 3686 (only the engrossed bill is available now. If it passes both Chambers, look for the enrolled bill, and later, after the Governor signs it, look for a 2010 Oregon Law, chapter xxx.)

This Summary is from the html version of the engrossed bill (also in PDF):

SUMMARY

Published on:

By

State v. Thomas Gregory Machuca (TC 050647097) (CA A133362) (SC S057910):

DE MUNIZ, C. J.

The state seeks review of a Court of Appeals decision that reversed and remanded defendant’s DUII conviction. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court had erroneously admitted test results of defendant’s blood alcohol content. The court reasoned that (1) defendant’s consent to have his blood drawn and tested had been unlawfully coerced because he had been read the legal consequences for refusing to consent to those procedures as required by Oregon’s implied consent statutes, ORS 813.095 to 813.136; and (2) the dissipation of alcohol from defendant’s bloodstream over time did not, by itself, provide an alternative justification for a warrantless blood draw conducted to secure evidence of defendant’s blood alcohol content. State v. Machuca, 231 Or App 232, 218 P3d 145 (2009). We allowed the state’s petition for review, and, for the reasons that follow, we now reverse the Court of Appeals decision….” (Read full case.)

Published on:

By

U.S. Presidents have been speaking out to members of Congress for a long time, and vice versa. Supreme Court Justices speak out every week, at the very least, and members of Congress get to have their say every minute of every day, or so it seems.

So, why the fuss when they disagree (e.g. making faces or outbursts)? It’s often about manners (e.g.), or history, or protocol, or even just frustration. Sometimes it’s about maturity and gravitas and mental health and sometimes it’s just about childish behavior. It might help if we had a Question Time where members of Congress could get it all out their systems, but that’s their own fault. If members of Congress wanted a Question Time, they could make that happen (House and Senate).

But we can all speak out. Isn’t that what America is about?

Contact Information