Martha Lee Walters

In this negligence case, plaintiff sued the Oregon State Fair Council after falling on wet aluminum bleachers at a fair event, alleging failure to maintain safe premises. Before trial, defendant moved to exclude evidence of a similar fall by a young girl around the same time and place under OEC 403 as unduly prejudicial, and the trial court granted the motion while noting plaintiff's arguments were preserved. Plaintiff later sought reconsideration during trial after defendant elicited related testimony, but the court adhered to its exclusion ruling, leading to a defense verdict. Plaintiff appealed the evidentiary decision, but the Court of Appeals affirmed on grounds that the issue was not adequately preserved. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that plaintiff had preserved the admissibility argument by responding to defendant's motion and the trial court's statements, and remanded for the Court of Appeals to address the merits of the OEC 403 ruling.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this negligence case, plaintiffs sued the estate of a driver and an insurer after a car accident, alleging that the defendant's negligent driving caused their injuries despite preexisting spinal conditions. At trial, the court gave a but-for causation instruction to the jury but refused plaintiffs' request for a substantial factor instruction, and the jury found for the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Oregon Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err because a but-for instruction accurately states the cause-in-fact requirement even in cases involving multiple potential causes. The court reasoned that a substantial factor instruction is not required in such cases and that other instructions on preexisting conditions and damages can address related issues.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Fox, the defendant was convicted of second- and third-degree assault after striking the victims with a metal chain during a property dispute, causing significant injuries. The trial court ordered restitution for the victims' medical expenses and for attorney fees the victims voluntarily incurred by hiring a private lawyer to participate in the criminal proceedings, including appearances at hearings and advocacy for a probationary sentence to facilitate restitution payments. The Oregon Supreme Court held that such attorney fees do not qualify as recoverable "economic damages" under ORS 137.106, because the statute's definition aligns with civil damages where fees to pursue recovery are not included, the prosecutor is responsible for presenting evidence of damages, and victims are not required to hire counsel. The court therefore reversed the restitution award for attorney fees, affirmed other aspects of the lower court's decisions, and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Chitwood, the defendant was convicted on three counts of sexual abuse involving his 13-year-old stepdaughter after a jury trial. On appeal, he argued that two statements by the prosecutor during rebuttal closing argument—referring to facts not in evidence and misstating the state's burden of proof—were so prejudicial that they deprived him of a fair trial, warranting reversal under plain error review despite the lack of a contemporaneous objection. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding the statements improper but declining plain error review due to insufficient prejudice and possible strategic reasons for not objecting. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the prosecutor's statements constituted plain error because they were impermissible and, taken together, egregious enough to deny a fair trial, and it exercised its discretion to correct the error. The court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, reversed the circuit court judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In this defamation case, a piano tuner who volunteered with a school district sued the district after employees reported that he appeared intoxicated while working on school property, allegedly violating his contract and district policy. The trial court granted summary judgment to the district on the ground that its employees enjoyed an absolute privilege for statements made in the course and scope of their duties, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the common-law absolute privilege does not extend to all public employees acting within the scope of their employment and that the employees here—performing routine tasks—were not entitled to it. The court reasoned that the privilege is narrowly limited to high-level executive officers and that extending it broadly would shield malicious statements without sufficient public justification, leaving only a qualified privilege available in such circumstances.

torts & liability

In this personal injury negligence case, plaintiff sued defendant after a rear-end car collision, seeking damages for physical injuries and severe emotional distress that led to a suicide attempt. Defendant admitted responsibility for the accident but contested whether the suicide attempt was a foreseeable result of her conduct and moved to exclude evidence that she had been using her cellphone at the time. The trial court denied the motion, finding the evidence relevant to the foreseeability issue, and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Oregon Supreme Court reinstated the trial court judgment, reasoning that evidence of defendant's full conduct, including cellphone use, was relevant to whether that conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk of the specific harm plaintiff suffered and was not unfairly prejudicial.

torts & liability

The case involved a deaf individual with diabetes held at Clackamas County Jail who alleged that a private company providing medical services there violated Oregon law by failing to provide an American Sign Language interpreter, leading to improper placement on suicide watch and denial of meals and insulin access. Plaintiff sued the contractor under ORS 659A.142(4), which bars disability discrimination by places of public accommodation, but the district court dismissed the claim on the ground that the defendant was not such a place under ORS 659A.400. On a certified question from the Ninth Circuit, the Oregon Supreme Court held that a private contractor providing healthcare services at a county jail qualifies as a place of public accommodation because the plaintiff was its customer or patron, the services fall within the statutory definition, and the exclusion for local correctional facilities does not apply to the contractor.

civil rightscriminal lawhealthcare

In State v. Jackson, the defendant was convicted after a trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence from a police encounter in an ATM vestibule, where a surveillance video admitted as an exhibit was later lost or destroyed. He sought reversal and a new trial from the Court of Appeals under ORS 19.420(3), but the court denied the motion, ruling that the missing video was not necessary to the appeal because the trial court's factual findings were binding. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that a lost record is necessary to the prosecution of an appeal when it is practically required to present and resolve the issues raised, and that the Court of Appeals erred by denying the motion without first examining the merits of the appeal to determine whether the video was needed. The case was remanded for the Court of Appeals to conduct that analysis in the context of the underlying seizure and suppression claims.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Reyes-Herrera, a police officer observed the defendant in an alley and, without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, approached him, questioned him about a possible drug transaction, and requested consent to search his person. The defendant, a non-native English speaker, consented, leading to the discovery of methamphetamine, after which he was convicted of unlawful possession. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the encounter constituted an unlawful seizure under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court denied the motion, but the Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that under the totality of the circumstances a reasonable person would have believed their liberty was restricted, making the interaction a stop without reasonable suspicion. The court remanded the case for further proceedings.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved whether evidence of methamphetamine delivery found during a warranted search of defendant Kristi DeJong's residence should be suppressed under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution because officers had previously unlawfully seized the residence. The trial court denied the suppression motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed based on the burden-shifting framework from State v. Johnson. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that DeJong met her initial burden to show a minimal factual nexus between the unlawful seizure and the discovered evidence, shifting the burden to the state. The court further held that the record was legally insufficient for the state to prove the evidence would have been inevitably discovered absent the seizure, particularly given an unidentified person who sought access to the residence during the seizure. The case was remanded to allow DeJong to withdraw her conditional guilty plea.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a plaintiff who sued the Oregon Department of Human Services for negligence and violation of the Vulnerable Person Act, alleging the agency failed to protect her from physical, emotional, and sexual abuse while she was in foster care until 2006. The plaintiff filed her claims in 2017 after obtaining her DHS records in 2016, more than ten years after the abuse. The circuit court dismissed the claims as untimely under a statute of ultimate repose, but the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that reversal. The court held that ORS 12.117 applies to child abuse claims and exempts them from the ten-year repose period in ORS 12.115, and that ORS 30.265(6)(d) of the Oregon Tort Claims Act does not grant public bodies immunity from such claims. The decision was based on the text, context, and legislative history of the relevant statutes, leading to remand for further proceedings.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff seeking underinsured motorist benefits after being injured in two automobile collisions with underinsured drivers; her policy capped coverage at $500,000 per accident. At trial, the jury found two separate accidents had occurred but could not apportion the cause of the plaintiff's indivisible injuries between them, resulting in an award of full damages minus offsets. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the court properly instructed the jury to determine both the number of accidents as a factual matter and whether the causes of injury could be separated. The court reasoned that when accidents occur in close succession and produce indistinguishable injuries, the law allows a finding of indivisibility without mandatory apportionment between the events.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Wolfe, the defendant was charged with aggravated murder based on conduct in May 2019, after which the legislature enacted SB 1013 that narrowed the statutory definition of aggravated murder by adding a premeditation requirement and altered capital sentencing procedures. The trial court dismissed the aggravated murder charge on ex post facto grounds under the state and federal constitutions, but the Oregon Supreme Court reversed on direct appeal. The court held that SB 1013 did not bar the state from charging aggravated murder, that the change to the crime's elements was ameliorative and therefore constitutional, and that any ex post facto violation regarding sentencing should be remedied by applying the prior sentencing rules rather than dismissing the charge. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.

criminal law

This case was an original mandamus proceeding filed by leaders of the Oregon Legislative Assembly against the Secretary of State. The relators sought court-ordered adjustments to the deadlines in Article IV, section 6, of the Oregon Constitution for decennial legislative reapportionment because the federal government would not release 2020 census data in time due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Oregon Supreme Court allowed the petition, ruling that the constitution's paramount purposes required reapportionment based on federal census data and that the court could modify deadlines via mandamus to fulfill those duties. The court set alternative deadlines for the Legislative Assembly and Secretary to complete the process in time for the 2022 election cycle without significantly affecting voters' rights.

electionsprocedurefederal power

In State v. Ramoz, the defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree rape and two counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration, but the jury instructions omitted the mens rea element requiring proof that the defendant acted knowingly. The trial court granted the defendant's post-verdict motion for a new trial under ORCP 64 B(1) on the ground that the omission was an irregularity in the proceedings that prevented a fair trial. The Oregon Supreme Court held that an instructional error of this kind qualifies as an irregularity under the rule, meaning the defendant was not required to object during trial, and that the error was not harmless because the jury was not instructed on an essential element that the state had the burden to prove. The court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the order granting a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Pittman, the state sought a court order to compel the defendant, charged with drug-related crimes, to unlock a passcode-protected cell phone seized pursuant to a search warrant, and the trial court held her in contempt when she failed to do so correctly. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the contempt judgment, holding that the order violated the defendant's right against self-incrimination under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution. The court reasoned that compelling the act of unlocking the phone is permissible only if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it already knows the information the act would communicate—such as the defendant's knowledge of the passcode—and that the order expressly prohibits using that act against the defendant except to access the phone's contents. Because the trial court made no such factual findings, the order was unlawful.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

Petitioners, who are members of Oregon's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), sought review of 2019 statutory amendments that redirect a portion of their contributions to a new account for funding defined benefits and impose a cap on salaries used to calculate retirement benefits. The court denied all challenges, ruling that the amendments do not impair contract rights under the Oregon Constitution's Contract Clause or the federal equivalent, as they do not retrospectively reduce benefits for past service and prior law did not promise against prospective modifications. Similar reasoning led to rejection of breach of contract and unconstitutional takings claims under state and federal constitutions.

labor & employmentproperty

In this case, plaintiff Scott Busch sued McInnis Waste Systems after its garbage truck struck him in a Portland crosswalk, resulting in the amputation of his leg; the defendant conceded liability, and a jury awarded over $13 million in damages, including $10.5 million in noneconomic damages. The trial court applied ORS 31.710(1) to reduce the noneconomic damages to $500,000, but the Oregon Supreme Court held that the statutory cap violated the remedy clause of Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution. The court reasoned that the cap lacked a sufficient quid pro quo for injured plaintiffs, was not set at a level capable of providing complete recovery in many cases or adjusting over time, and that the legislature's goals of reducing litigation costs and insurance premiums were insufficient to override the constitutional right to a remedy for personal injuries. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision, reversed the trial court's reduction of damages, and remanded for further proceedings.

torts & liabilitycivil rights

This case concerned a validation proceeding initiated by Multnomah County to determine the constitutionality of its ordinances implementing a voter-approved charter amendment that imposed limits on campaign contributions, independent expenditures, and disclosure requirements. The Oregon Supreme Court overruled its prior decision in Vannatta v. Keisling and held that the contribution limits were not facially invalid under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, though it remanded the case for the trial court to assess their validity under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the independent expenditure limits violated both the state and federal constitutions because they restricted protected speech. Finally, the court concluded that challenges to the disclosure rules were moot due to a subsequent amendment by the county.

electionsfree speech

In this landlord-tenant dispute, C.O. Homes, LLC brought a forcible entry and detainer action against tenant Nancy Cleveland to recover possession of a rental unit after she failed to pay her security deposit, initially attaching a 72-hour termination notice under the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Two days before trial, the landlord moved to amend its complaint to add a 30-day for-cause notice for the same nonpayment issue; the trial court allowed the amendment over the tenant's objection, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion under ORCP 23 A by permitting the amendment. The court reasoned that the proposed change substantially altered the landlord's claim for relief and would unduly prejudice the tenant by introducing a new basis for eviction after she had already answered and prepared for trial based on the original pleading.

propertyprocedure