Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In two criminal cases consolidated for purposes of opinion, each defendant attempted to waive his constitutional right to a jury trial as guaranteed by Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. In both cases, the trial court refused to consent to the waiver, and juries subsequently convicted each defendant of the charges against him. In "Oregon v. Harrell," (250 P3d 1 (2011)), the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in refusing defendant Harrell's requested jury waiver and affirmed the convictions. On review in Harrell, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to reconsider defendant's jury waiver. In "Oregon v. Wilson," (247 P3d 1262 (2011)), the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court's refusal to consent to defendant's requested jury waiver had been within the trial court's discretion and affirmed defendant's convictions. On review in Wilson, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court to reconsider defendant's jury waiver. View "Oregon v. Harrell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Mark Strawn, the plaintiff in a class action case, petitioned for an award of attorney fees and costs incurred for the appellate work done on review before the Supreme Court in the underlying matter. In addition, Strawn sought two supplemental fee awards: one for the cost of litigating the fee petition, and the other for the cost of defending against a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court after the Oregon court issued its decision. Further, Strawn sought a $5,000 incentive fee for his service on review as class representative. The issues raised by this appeal included: (1) the appropriate method for determining the amount of a reasonable fee award in a case that involved both a statutory fee-shifting award and a common-fund award; (2) the propriety of applying a multiplier to the awards; (3) how fees should be apportioned between the fee-shifting and the common-fund awards; (4) whether this court has authority to award attorney fees for work done in opposing a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court; (5) whether a court has authority to award post-opinion, prejudgment interest on court-awarded attorney fees; and (6) whether an appellate court may award a class representative a class incentive fee on appeal and review. Strawn filed a class action against Farmers raising two contractual claims (breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith) and one common law claim (fraud) in connection with auto insurance policies written by Farmers. The jury found for the class on the contractual claims and the fraud claim, and it made a single award of compensatory damages on those claims. In addition, and for the fraud claim only, the jury awarded punitive damages. The Supreme Court took the opportunity of this case to discuss the methodology appropriate to award fees based on the issues raised in the appeal, and made adjustments as deemed necessary in compliance with the limits of Oregon law. View "Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co.  " on Justia Law

The Department of Corrections (DOC) made changes to its employees' scheduled days off and their shift stop and start times without first bargaining with representatives of the employees' union, the Association of Oregon Corrections Employees (AOCE). As an affirmative defense to AOCE's complaint alleging that DOC had committed an unfair labor practice, DOC asserted that the terms of the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA) permitted its unilateral action. The Employment Labor Relations Board (ERB) rejected DOC's argument and concluded that DOC had committed an unfair labor practice under ORS 243.672(1)(e). The Court of Appeals reversed. The DOC appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals after review of the applicable statutory authority and controlling case law. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Assn. of Oregon Corrections Emp. v. Oregon" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether plaintiff had standing under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, ORS 28.020, to seek a declaration that defendant Sisters School District #6 and its Board of Directors lacked authority to enter into a particular form of financing arrangement without a vote of the people. Plaintiff alleged that he had standing because his "status as a taxpayer and voter within the district will or may be adversely affected[.]" More specifically, plaintiff alleged that entering into the challenged form of financing arrangement might, in some unspecified way, "jeopardize the district[']s ability to provide for the daily operation of the district" and, if that should come to pass, increase the likelihood that the district will have to seek additional financing to cover its obligations. The trial court concluded that those allegations were insufficient to satisfy the requirement of ORS 28.020 that only persons "whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected" by the challenged ordinance have standing. The Court of Appeals concluded that the harm that plaintiff alleges is too attenuated and speculative to satisfy the standing requirement of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed and affirmed the appellate and trial courts. View "Morgan v. Sisters School District #6" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant Leland Hemenway with possession of methamphetamine. Before trial, he filed a motion to suppress evidence seized by police, arguing that his consent to search was the product of an illegal seizure, and therefore was inadmissible under the Oregon Constitution. The trial court denied the motion, and Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, finding that the stop was unlawful and the evidence from the search was presumptively obtained through exploitation of the earlier unlawful conduct. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, using the opportunity of this opinion to modify the exploitation analysis announced in the case-law authority the Court of Appeals relied on in its reversal (Oregon v. Hall, 115 P3d 908 (2005)). View "Oregon v. Hemenway" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was the interpretation of a commercial general liability (CGL) policy that Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange sold to Plaintiff Bresee Homes, Inc. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of Farmers and denied Bresee's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The dispute stemmed from a homeowner suit in which Bresee claimed Farmers had a duty under the CGL to defend, and to reimburse for any damages arising out of the homeowners' suit. Upon review of the subject policy, the Supreme Court concluded that the Farmers owed a duty to defend to Bresee. Accordingly, the Court concluded the trial court erred in granting Farmers' motion for summary judgment, and for denying Bresee's cross-motion on the issue of the duty to defend. The Court could not determine whether the policy afforded a basis for indemnification, and as such, neither party was entitled to summary judgment on that issue. The case was reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Bresee Homes, Inc. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange" on Justia Law

The Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists (board) issued a final order suspending petitioner Rachel Weldon's license for two years and assessed costs against her. Petitioner asked the board to stay enforcement of that order pending judicial review. A few months later, the board issued an amended final order of suspension. Concluding that petitioner had not demonstrated irreparable harm and had failed to show a colorable claim of error, and that substantial public harm would result if it entered a stay, the board also entered a final order denying petitioner's request for a stay. Petitioner appealed the board's order assessing the fine and denying the stay. Petitioner also asked the Court of Appeals to enter an emergency stay to permit her to continue to practice until appellate court proceedings were complete. The Appellate Commissioner granted petitioner a temporary stay pending the board's response to petitioner's motion. In its response, the board asserted that ORS 676.210 precluded the Court of Appeals from entering a stay. The commissioner accepted the board's understanding of ORS 676.210 but, sua sponte, decided that, by precluding the exercise of the court's inherent authority to grant a stay, the statute violated the separation of powers provision of Article III, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution. The board appealed the part of the commissioner's order that declared ORS 676.210 unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals ultimately granted review of the matter and determined that petitioner demonstrated a colorable claim of error. It denied petitioner's motion for a stay and vacated that part of the appellate commissioner's order that permitted petitioner to file a supersedeas matter to stay the board's fine. Upon review of the appeals, the Supreme Court concluded that the board erred when it argued, and the Court of Appeals erred when it decided, that the Court of Appeals had no authority to issue a stay pending its decision on the merits of petitioner's appeal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Supreme Court stayed the board's order suspending petitioner's license until the Court of Appeals issued its decision on petitioner's request. View "Weldon v. Bd. of Lic. Pro. Counselors and Therapists" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Synectic Ventures I, LLC, Synectic Ventures II, LLC, and Synectic Ventures III, LLC, entered into a loan agreement regarding money that they had loaned to defendant EVI Corporation. The loan agreement provided that the loan, secured by a security interest in essentially all of defendant's property, would be converted to equity ownership in defendant, if defendant obtained additional financing by a certain date. Shortly before that deadline, the managing member of plaintiffs (who was also chairman of the board and treasurer of defendant and financially interested in defendant) entered into an agreement purporting to extend the loan period by an additional year. During the extension period, defendant obtained the additional financing and converted the debt to equity. Plaintiffs filed an action against defendant, asserting that they were not bound by the extension because the managing member had had a conflict of interest and defendant knew of the conflict. The trial court rejected that argument and granted summary judgment for defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in granting defendant summary judgment, and reversed the court's judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Synectic Ventures I, LLC v. EVI Corp." on Justia Law

The State of Oregon, through the Oregon State Treasurer and the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Board (PERB), on behalf of the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund (PERF) (collectively, "state"), asserted claims against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) and Marsh, Inc. (MI). The state alleged that Marsh engaged in a scheme perpetrated by false and misleading statements that caused the state to lose approximately $10 million on investments in Marsh stock. The state contended that Marsh's actions violated ORS 10 59.135 and ORS 59.137. Marsh argued on appeal that ORS 59.135 and ORS 59.137 require a showing of reliance by the state, the state failed to establish any direct reliance by state actors on any actions by Marsh, and the state could not establish the required reliance by means of a presumption of reliance based on the "fraud-on-the-market" doctrine. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable statutes, the Supreme Court determined that ORS 59.137 requires a stock purchaser to establish reliance, but that a stock purchaser who purchases stock on an efficient, open market may establish reliance by means of the "fraud-on-the-market" presumption. View "Oregon v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was the purported conflict between two statutes relating to the issuance of a writ of mandamus: ORS 34.110, which precludes issuance of the writ if the relator has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and ORS 34.130(3), which states that a writ of mandamus "shall be allowed" by a court or judge on the petition for the writ. After plaintiff filed a petition for an alternative writ, the court declined to issue the writ and instead dismissed plaintiff's petition, relying on the existence of an adequate remedy at law. Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed without opinion. Upon review of the circuit court record, the Supreme Court concluded that that the circuit court permissibly dismissed plaintiff's petition. View "Oregon ex rel Portland Habilitation Center v. Portland St. Univ." on Justia Law