Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Oregon Department of Revenue assessed taxpayers $5,595 for deficient taxes, plus additional penalties and interest, for tax year 2013. Taxpayers first appealed that determination to the Magistrate Division of the Tax Court. While the case was pending there, the parties jointly moved to hold the proceedings in abeyance pending the outcome of an Internal Revenue Service audit reconsideration. The parties also entered into an agreement extending the limitation period for the department to make “any adjustment necessary to arrive at the correct amount of Oregon taxable income and Oregon tax liability.” The limitation period expired April 30, 2019, and no new or modified assessment was sent. After the Magistrate Division proceedings were reinstated, taxpayers contended that the extension agreement voided the original assessment, and so the absence of a new assessment meant the court should grant summary judgment in their favor. The department countered that the original assessment remained valid and in effect. The magistrate agreed with the department and denied taxpayers’ motion, and later denied taxpayers’ two motions for reconsideration. After taxpayers repeatedly refused to comply with the department’s request for production of documents, the department moved to dismiss. The magistrate granted that motion, and taxpayers appealed that decision by filing a complaint with the Tax Court Regular Division. Taxpayers’ complaint sought relief from the 2013 assessment of deficient income taxes, and included a motion by taxpayers to stay the statutory requirement to pay the deficiency, together with an affidavit regarding their finances to support their claim that payment would impose an undue hardship. The Tax Court ultimately dismissed taxpayers' appeal for failing to either pay the assessed income tax or show that doing so would constitute an undue hardship. Finding no error in that judgment, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed dismissal. View "Picker v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

Taxpayers, who did not dispute that they had in fact been paid substantial wages in tax years 2016-18, contended at Tax Court that they owed no Oregon income tax for those years. The Tax Court concluded their arguments in support of that contention were frivolous and therefore warranted a penalty under ORS 305.437. Accordingly, the court ordered taxpayers to pay the Department of Revenue (department) a penalty of$4,000. Taxpayers appealed, challenging only the penalty award. Finding no reversible error, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Court’s judgment. View "Jimenez v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Lindsay Buero brought a class action against defendants Amazon.Com Services, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. in Oregon state court, alleging, among other things, that defendants had violated Oregon’s wage laws by failing to pay employees for time spent in mandatory security screenings at the end of their work shifts. Defendants removed the case to federal court and moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the time spent in the security screenings was not compensable. In support of that argument, defendants cited Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, (574 US 27), a case involving a similar claim against defendants, in which the United States Supreme Court held that, under federal law, time spent in the security screenings at issue in that case was not compensable. The district court agreed with defendants, noting the similarities between Oregon administrative rules enacted by the state’s Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) and federal law. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit and filed a motion asking that court to certify a question to the Oregon Supreme Court on whether time spent in security screenings is compensable under Oregon law. The Ninth Circuit granted the motion. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded Oregon law aligned with federal law regarding what activities were compensable. Therefore, under Oregon law, as under federal law, time that employees spend on the employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing mandatory security screenings before or after their work shifts is compensable only if the screenings are either: (1) an integral and indispensable part of the employees’ principal activities or (2) compensable as a matter of contract, custom, or practice. View "Buero v. Amazon.com Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Relator petitioned for a restraining order against her husband (respondent) under the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), ORS 107.700-107.735. During a hearing on her petition, relator offered as exhibits six videos from a dash-mounted camera in the parties’ car in connection with an alleged incident of abuse. One of the videos showed relator speaking on a cell phone to a “certified advocate.” That video exhibit was offered to support relator’s testimony about her fear for her physical safety. Relator also indicated that she had sometimes texted that advocate. Respondent requested production of the entire memory card from the dash-mounted camera, as well as “[a]ll correspondence, memoranda, e-mail, text messages, recordings of any kind, and any other documents from any advocate assisting [relator] in this case to [relator] or from [relator to her] advocate relating to the alleged events in this case.” Relator refused to produce those items, arguing, as relevant here, that respondent’s request for the entire memory card violated ORCP 36 because it was oppressive, overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and was not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Relator also argued that her communications with her certified advocate were privileged under OEC 507-1. Relator petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the trial court’s discovery order, and concurrently moved for a stay of the discovery order at the trial court. The trial court denied the stay, citing OEC 507-1(3), which limited the applicability of the certified advocate-victim privilege in certain circumstances. Relator continued to refuse to produce the memory card and her communications with her advocate, and, on respondent’s motion, the trial court dismissed the FAPA proceeding as a sanction. The Supreme Court determined the trial court was presented with “no meritorious argument to support compelling production.” Without such an argument, and with no alternative explanation from the court for its ruling, the Supreme Court found the court’s order to produce the memory card was legally unsupported and therefore could not stand. Mandamus relief was granted. View "I. H. v. Ammi" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Gregory Chaimov made a public records request in July 2018, seeking copies of completed request forms used by state agencies to propose legislation for the 2019 legislative session. Individual state agencies had completed approved blank forms and then submitted them to the Oregon Department of Legislative Services (DAS) for the Governor to decide whether to request that the Office of Legislative Counsel prepare draft bills. The issue presented for the Oregon Supreme Court's review was whether completed request forms from the Office of Legislative Counsel were subject to disclosure under Oregon’s Public Records Law. DAS contended the requested forms fell within the attorney-client privilege under OEC 503 and were thus exempted from disclosure under ORS 192.355 (9)(a). The trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiff, holding that the request forms were not exempt and ordering their disclosure. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that they were subject to the attorney-client privilege. On review, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reversed the judgment of the trial court. View "Chaimov v. Dept. of Admin. Services" on Justia Law

In October 2019, defendants rented an apartment from plaintiff pursuant to a month-to-month tenancy rental agreement. The parties’ agreement required defendants to pay a $1,500 security deposit and $850 a month in rent. When defendants moved in, they personally paid $525 toward their October rent, and, a short time later, the Siletz Tribal Housing Department (STHD) paid plaintiff $1,500 on defendants’ behalf. No further payments were made. On December 17, 2019, plaintiff issued to defendants a written notice for nonpayment of rent and intent to terminate (“termination notice”). The notice stated that defendants owed $1,700 in unpaid rent: $850 for rent in October, and $850 for rent in November. Further, the notice advised defendants that the rental agreement would be terminated if not received by December 27, 2019, at 11:59 p.m. Defendants did not pay any amount, and plaintiff filed an FED action on December 30, 2019. At trial, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the overpayment by SHTD, coupled with the amount they personally paid at the start of the lease, still left defendants owing and unpaid. Furthermore, defendants argued plaintiff did not properly account for the amounts of money he received, and was not specific as to the actual amounts due in the notice. The trial court ultimately ruled in favor of plaintiff. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, finding that ORS 90.394(3) required that a notice of termination for nonpayment of rent had to specify the correct amount due to cure the default. When the notice states an incorrect amount that is greater than the amount actually due, the notice is invalid, and any subsequent FED action relying on that notice is likewise invalid and requires dismissal. The Court reversed the contrary decisions of both the trial and appellate courts. View "Hickey v. Scott" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Thomas Lowell provided piano tuning services to defendant Medford School District and assisted in producing concerts performed in defendant’s facilities. While providing production assistance for a particular concert, plain- tiff noticed an echo near the stage. He complained to the school theater technician, Stephanie Malone, and, later, feeling that Malone had not adequately responded, he followed up with her. Malone reported to her supervisor that plaintiff appeared to be intoxicated, that he “smelled of alcohol,” and that “this was not the first time.” The supervisor repeated Malone’s statements to a district support services assistant. The assistant sent emails summarizing Malone’s statements to three other district employees, including the supervisor of purchasing. The assistant expressed concerns that appearing on district property under the influence of alcohol violated district policy and the terms of plaintiff’s piano tuning contract. Plaintiff brought this defamation action against Malone, the supervisor and assistant, later substituting the School district for the individual defendants. Defendant answered, asserting multiple affirmative defenses, including the one at issue here: that public employees are entitled to an absolute privilege for defamatory statements made in the course and scope of their employment. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on that basis. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, finding that defendant as a public employer, did not have an affirmative defense of absolute privilege that entitled it to summary judgment. View "Lowell v. Medford School Dist. 549C" on Justia Law

Relator—the decedent’s personal representative—brought a wrongful death claim under ORS 30.020 that sought, among other things, damages on behalf of the statutory beneficiaries for their loss of decedent’s society and companionship. The trial court entered an order under ORCP 44 C requiring the beneficiaries to produce records of their medical and psychological care that was relevant to those alleged damages. Relator filed a petition for an alternative writ of mandamus, which the Oregon Supreme Court allowed, arguing that the beneficiaries’ records were privileged, and that ORCP 44 C could not require disclosure because that rule applied to claims made for “damages for injuries to the party,” and the beneficiaries were not parties. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s ruling was in error. As a matter of law, the Court held that statutory beneficiaries of a wrongful death claim were not, by virtue of that status, “parties” who could be compelled under ORCP 44 C to provide privileged records. View "Dahlton v. Kyser" on Justia Law

Defendant rear-ended plaintiff’s vehicle, and plaintiff suffered physical and emotional injuries as a result. Plaintiff claimed that her emotional injuries were so severe that she attempted to take her own life and was hospitalized. Defendant disputed responsibility for that harm on the ground that her conduct did not unreasonably create a foreseeable risk of such harm but argued that the court should exclude certain evidence of her conduct—that, immediately before the collision, she had been using her cellphone—as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. Reasoning that evidence of defendant’s conduct could affect the jury’s determination of the foreseeability question and was not unfairly prejudicial, the trial court denied defendant’s motion. After a jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor, the trial court entered judgment, and defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Oregon Supreme Court agreed with the trial court, affirmed the judgment that it entered, and reversed the contrary decision of the Court of Appeals. View "Scott v. Kesselring" on Justia Law

Petitioner Bruce Querbach sought to overturn a final order of the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) which determined that reports to DHS that petitioner had abused two children were “founded.” The circuit court, reviewing the order as an order in other than a contested case, assumed that the “reasonable cause to believe” standard in that rule was a “probable cause” standard. After holding a trial to develop the record for review, as required by Norden v. Water Resources Dept., 996 P2d 958 (2000), the circuit court concluded that only two of DHS’s four “founded” determinations could be sustained under that standard. On petitioner’s appeal and DHS’s cross-appeal, the Court of Appeals rejected the circuit court’s application of a “probable cause” standard and, instead employing the “reasonable suspicion” standard that it had used in an earlier, similar case, concluded that not just two, but three of DHS’s “founded” determinations had to be sustained. Appealing to the Oregon Supreme Court, petitioner argued that “probable cause” was the correct standard for determining that a report of abuse is founded and that none of DHS’s “founded” determinations hold up when the record on review was considered under that standard. Petitioner also argued that, given that the circuit court found that the DHS investigation and analysis into the reported abuse was incomplete and flawed in various respects, the “founded” determinations had to be set aside. The Supreme Court rejected those arguments and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that three of the four “founded” dispositions were supported by substantial evidence. View "Querbach v. Dept. of Human Services" on Justia Law