Articles Tagged with Cases – Oregon

Published on:

By

Still wondering about the jury verdict in the Bundy et al Malheur Militia case? This Oregonian article explains a lot. (You’ll  need to do some more homework to explain it all – or most of it, including, among other things, learning about sentencing guidelines and the (former) Oregon U.S. Attorney decision to appeal an Oregon federal district court judge’s sentencing decision.)

Never underestimate, or second guess, a jury until you stand in their shoes – or sit in their chairs:

“Who was John Killman? A tip and detective work unmask mystery man at Oregon refuge,” by Maxine Bernstein, [print] Oregonian, Sunday, November 6, 2016.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Oregon v. Lang, 273 Or App 113 (2015), (Benton County Circuit Court CM1320460; A154498)

Citations below are to the online, unofficial advance sheet version of this case, and available for viewing (at least as of today) at: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A154498.pdf

This is another case that would be quite instructive to laypeople interested in the law, assuming they read the whole case and also perhaps talk to a lawyer or judge about it, rather than relying on a brief news report – or a blog post.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Moro v. State of Oregon, 357 Or 167 (S061452) (2015)

“.... Before Balmer, Chief Justice, and Kistler, Walters, Linder, Brewer, and Baldwin, Justices, and Haselton, Chief Judge of the Oregon Court of Appeals, Justice pro tempore.**

BALMER, C. J.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

November 05, 2014: Court of Appeals: State of Oregon v. Jason Paul Hite (A150288 – Lane County Circuit Court)

HADLOCK, J.

“Defendant seeks reversal of a number of convictions related to identity theft 3 and forgery. Before trial, defendant moved to suppress evidence found in his backpack after he was arrested on an outstanding warrant, arguing that the police unlawfully searched the backpack. The trial court ruled that the police were required to inventory the contents of the backpack before taking defendant to jail, and it denied the motion to suppress. On appeal, defendant argues, among other things, that the search was unlawful because it was not conducted pursuant to a facially valid inventory policy that sufficiently limited the scope of the inventory. The state contends that the inventory policy is sufficiently limited and, alternatively, that the search was a constitutionally permissible search incident to defendant’s arrest. We agree with defendant that the inventory policy is unconstitutionally overbroad. We reject the state’s alternative argument because the state did not raise it in the trial court and, if it had, defendant might have been able to create a different record on the issue. Accordingly, we reverse as to the challenged convictions….” [Link to full case.]

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Antonio Cortez v. Nacco Material Handling Group, Inc.et al (TC 0503-02632) (CA A144045) (SC S060604)

“On review from the Court of Appeals in an appeal from the Multnomah County Circuit Court, Michael H. Marcus, Judge. 248 Or App 435, 274 P3d 202 (2012). The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. Opinion of the Court by Justice Rives Kistler.

Today, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that neither the limited liability provision in the statutes governing limited liability companies (LCCs) nor the exclusive-remedy clause in the workers’ compensation statutes barred plaintiff’s claims for negligence and violations of the Employer Liability Law (ELL) against the member-manager of the LLC where he worked. The Court also ruled that, although plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to show that the member-manager could be held liable for negligence, he had presented enough evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that the member-manager was liable under the ELL….” [Link to full case and Oregon Supreme Court 2014 opinions.]

Published on:

By

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.]

Published on:

By

What happens in Oregon when a word in a statute is undefined – and someone’s life and liberty is at stake?

In the case of 2011 ORS 167.007 and Oregon v. Palomo, the Oregon Court of Appeals weighs in and defines the word “fee,” with a little help from a dictionary and a legislative history.

Oregon v. Palomo A148047 (Control), A148045

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

It’s only a matter of time before someone asks about “the burrito case, you know, the ‘ultimate fighting’ case.”

This might not be the only Oregon burrito, ultimate fighting case, but if anyone asks, start here: 

Oregon Court of Appeals: State vs. Debuiser, A145479 (decided April 4, 2012)

Continue reading →
Contact Information
The information provided on the Oregon Legal Research website and blog is for research purposes only. We do not provide legal advice, nor do we endorse any person, product, or company

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2024, Oregon Legal Research
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design