Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff submitted a motion for a new trial to the trial court on the last permissible day for filing such a document. The clerk rejected the filing for failure to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff corrected that deficiency the next day, immediately upon notification of the problem, and requested that the filing relate back to the original submission date under Uniform Trial Court Rule (UTCR) 21.080(5). The trial court, the Appellate Commissioner, and the Court of Appeals determined plaintiff’s motion was untimely, each on a different basis. After its review, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was timely under UTCR 21.080(5). It therefore reversed the Court of Appeals. View "Otnes v. PCC Structurals, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kyle Walker persuaded a jury that her public employer had wrongfully discharged her from her at-will position for blowing the whistle on what she reasonably believed to be her employer’s violations of law. The trial court had denied her employer’s motions for a directed verdict, and the court entered a judgment that awarded her damages on that claim. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, notwithstanding the jury verdict in her favor, plaintiff’s action had not served an important public policy. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, finding the appellate court incorrectly concluded that the threshold issue, whether plaintiff had identified an important public policy that permitted her to assert the tort of wrongful discharge, depended on whether she had reasonably believed that her employer had violated the law; instead, the Court found that threshold issue properly turned on sources of law that support the asserted public policy and whether those sources of law were tied to the acts by plaintiff that led her employer to discharge her. The Supreme Court further concluded that whether plaintiff had a reasonable belief that her employer had violated the law - the disputed element of whistleblowing on appeal - was a question of fact for the factfinder and that the record contained evidence that supported the jury’s finding. View "Walker v. Oregon Travel Information Council" on Justia Law

Daimler-Benz AG acquired Freightliner Corporation (Freightliner) from Consolidated Freightways (now Con-Way) in 1981. As part of the transaction, it liquidated Freightliner’s assets and liabilities into a subsidiary, Daimler Trucks North America LLC (Daimler). Between 1952 and 1982, Freightliner and then Daimler had engaged in business activities, primarily the manufacture of trucks, that subsequently led to several environmental remediation proceedings, including claims related to the Portland Harbor Superfund cleanup, and to some 1,500 asbestos personal injury claims. Plaintiffs Allianz Global Risk US Insurance and Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company (Allianz) insured Freightliner in 1981 and Daimler from 1981 to 1986 through a general commercial liability insurance policy. Daimler also purchased from Allianz another policy to provide coverage for future claims that might be made against Freightliner based on its past operations that were “incurred but not yet reported.” By the time it filed the operative complaint in this action in 2014, Allianz had spent more than $24 million defending and paying environmental and asbestos claims against Daimler and the now-dissolved Freightliner arising from Freightliner’s business operations between 1952 and 1982. In this litigation, Allianz sought contribution for the payments it has made and will make in the future based on those environmental and asbestos claims from insurance companies that insured Freightliner -- either directly or through its parent, Con-Way -- from 1976 to 1982. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' holding that Daimler did not assume the contingent liabilities of Freightliner (including the liabilities at issue here) and affirmed the jury verdict on that issue. On Allianz's appeal, the Supreme Court agreed that the trial court erred in submitting to the jury the question of whether, because of side agreements between Con-Way/Freightliner and the insurers, those insurers had a "duty to defend or indemnify Freightliner" -- that question was to be decided by the trial court as a matter of law based on the relevant policies. As to the "London pollution exclusion", the Supreme Court agreed with Allianz that it was error for the trial court not to provide a legal interpretation of a key provision in the policy as part of the jury instructions. The Court also concluded that the jury instructions regarding the London pollution exclusion should be similar to those regarding the Domestic exclusion. The decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed. The limited judgments of the trial court were affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Allianz Global Risks v. ACE Property & Casualty Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant Talon Ramoz was charged with two counts of first-degree rape and two counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration. When it came time to instruct the jury on those charges, defendant and the state both requested instructions that they expected would correspond to those set out in the Uniform Criminal Jury Instructions. The final jury instructions did not, however, correspond with those instructions; instead, the instructions omitted, in the list of elements the state was required to prove, the mens rea elements — that defendant had acted knowingly. Defendant was found guilty on all counts but moved for a new trial under ORCP 64 B(1), alleging that the omission in the instructions was an “[i]rregularity in the proceedings of the court” that prevented him from having a fair trial. The trial court granted defendant’s motion, and the state appealed. In a divided, en banc decision, the Court of Appeals reversed. Finding no reversible error, the Oregon Supreme Court concurred and affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Oregon v. Ramoz" on Justia Law

Defendant Justin Link committed aggravated murder as a juvenile in 2001. He was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment, which, as defined by statute at the relevant time, required him to serve “a minimum of 30 years without possibility of parole.” After serving that minimum term of confinement, defendant could petition to convert his sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. In this case, defendant argued the statute under which he was sentenced violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals agreed. The Oregon Supreme Court allowed the state’s petition for review, and reversed, finding defendant did not establish that the statutory scheme applicable here denied him a meaningful opportunity for release. "Therefore, the sentence that defendant received is not the functional equivalent of life without parole. It follows that defendant has failed to establish that Miller’s individualized-sentencing requirement applies to a sentence of 'life imprisonment' under ORS 163.105(1)(c) (2001)." The circuit court's order was affirmed. View "Oregon v. Link" on Justia Law

Defendant Alex Aguirre-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to several crimes that resulted in damage to the victim’s truck. After the state presented evidence of a repair bill paid by the victim’s insurer, the trial court ordered defendant to pay restitution for the full amount of that bill, pursuant to ORS 137.106. Defendant appealed, arguing that the restitution award was not supported by sufficient evidence to prove that the amount charged had been reasonable. The Court of Appeals agreed with defendant and reversed. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded the state presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the amount that the victim’s insurer paid for repairs was reasonable. The trial court therefore did not err in entering the restitution award. View "Oregon v. Aguirre-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Oregon Supreme Court allowed review in this criminal case to consider whether the trial court correctly allowed the state to impeach defendant’s testimony with evidence that defendant previously had been convicted of second-degree assault. Defendant Frank Phillips was originally convicted on that crime in 1994, as well as other, more serious crimes arising out of an incident in 1993. In 2007, while still serving his prison sentence for the 1994 convictions, defendant successfully challenged those convictions through a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court vacated all of defendant’s 1994 convictions and remanded the case for a new trial, at which point the Department of Corrections released him from confinement. On retrial, in 2008, defendant again was convicted of second-degree assault, for which he was sentenced to a period of 36 months’ incarceration. But defendant was acquitted on retrial of the more serious charges that had been the basis for his lengthy original prison sentence. As a result, the judgment of conviction following retrial specified that defendant’s 36-month sentence for the second-degree assault “is served,” and the Department of Corrections issued a certificate specifying that defendant had an “Adjusted Calculated Release Date” of May 1996. In this case, defendant was charged with assault and strangulation arising out of an altercation with a neighbor. At the start of defendant’s trial, he advised the court that he planned to testify, and he urged the court to rule that evidence of his prior second-degree assault conviction would not be admissible under OEC 609. Defendant argued the operative date of his prior conviction was 1994, and that the operative date of his release from confinement for that conviction was 1996, meaning that the conviction should have been excluded because both dates fell outside of the OEC 609(3)(a) window of admissibility. The trial court disagreed and ruled that the state could offer evidence of the conviction as impeachment. The Court of Appeals concluded the date of defendant’s conviction on retrial supplied “the date of the conviction” for purposes of OEC 609’s 15-year window of admissibility and, accordingly, that the trial court correctly allowed evidence of that conviction to impeach defendant’s testimony. The Oregon Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and affirmed. View "Oregon v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The State charged defendant Daezhar Banks with harassment based on an incident at a mobile phone store. Before trial, the State provided defendant with a video from the store’s security system, but the video did not show the alleged harassment. During voir dire, the prosecutor told the prospective jurors, over defense counsel’s objections, that “the rules of evidence” limited what she could present to the jury, that “some things are not going to come into the trial today,” and that the jury was “not going to have all the facts.” In support of his objections, defense counsel argued that the prosecutor’s statements implied “that there’s more video, but for some reason that video didn’t get to come in by the rules of evidence.” Defense counsel asked the trial court to instruct the jury that it should not assume that “the rules of evidence have precluded any evidence at this point.” The court denied defense counsel’s request. During the trial, defense counsel disputed that defendant had committed the alleged harassment and argued, among other things, that, although the store had three security cameras and one of its employees had testified that the cameras would have captured the full incident, the state had failed to produce video of the alleged harassment. During deliberations, the jury sent questions to the court, asking if the prosecutor knew whether there was video of the alleged harassment and, if so, whether the prosecutor was required to show it at trial. The court responded by telling the jury that it had been “provided the admit- ted evidence in this case” and that the court was “unable to provide further response.” The jury found defendant guilty. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court committed reversible error by overruling defense counsel’s objections and denying his requested jury instruction. The Oregon Supreme Court concurred with defense counsel, and ruled that the trial court's error was not harmless. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and the matter remanded for a new trial. View "Oregon v. Banks" on Justia Law

Both relator Michael Ross and the State asked the trial court to instruct the jury that it could acquit defendant by a vote of 10-to-2. The trial court concluded that, in the wake of Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S Ct 1390 (2020), any verdict on serious criminal charges - whether to convict or to acquit - must be unanimous, and the court informed the parties that it would instruct the jury accordingly. Relator contended that, although the Supreme Court’s holding in Ramos would render a nonunanimous guilty verdict in his trial unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment, that holding did not affect the viability of Oregon law - specifically, Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 136.450 - authorizing a nonunanimous not-guilty verdict. To this the Oregon Supreme Court agreed with relator and issued a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to instruct the jury that Oregon law required a unanimous guilty verdict for all charges and permits a not-guilty verdict by a vote of 11-to-1 or 10-to-2. View "Oregon v. Ross" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company (bank) held a deed of trust to the a condominium unit, while defendant Tanglewood Hills Condominium Association (Tanglewood) had a lien for condominium assessments that had not been paid by the owner. Although the bank’s lien would ordinarily take priority, Tanglewood contended that its lien gained priority under ORS 100.450(7), because the bank “ha[d] not initiated” a foreclosure action during a 90-day notice period prescribed by that statute. The trial court rejected Tanglewood’s argument and granted summary judgment for the bank. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Oregon Supreme Court agreed with Tanglewood that a condominium association’s notice under ORS 100.450(7)(a) triggered an obligation on a first lienholder to act within 90 days, or the condominium association’s lien will take priority. In this case, the bank did not act before the 90 days expired. Nor could the bank rely on its previously filed foreclosure action, as that action had been dismissed by general judgment prior to the notice, and it remained dismissed throughout the entire 90-day period. Once the 90 days elapsed without the case being reopened or a new foreclosure action being filed, Tanglewood was granted priority over the bank’s interest by operation of ORS 100.450(7). The decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed. The judgment of the circuit court was reversed, and the case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Sulejmanagic" on Justia Law