Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2022, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 113, amending the state constitution to disqualify any state legislator who accumulates 10 or more unexcused absences during a legislative session from holding office "for the term following the election after the member’s current term is completed." The Secretary of State interpreted this to mean that the disqualification applies to a legislator’s immediate next term. However, a group of legislators challenged this interpretation, arguing that the disqualification should apply one term later.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon held that the measure's disqualification applies to the legislator’s immediate next term of office. The Court found that the text of the amendment was capable of supporting the Secretary's interpretation. This interpretation was also supported by the ballot title and the voters’ pamphlet, which repeatedly described the disqualification as occurring immediately following the legislator’s current term. The Court concluded that voters would have understood the amendment in light of these materials. Therefore, the Court upheld the Secretary's rules implementing the amendment. View "Knopp v. Griffin-Valade" on Justia Law

In the State of Oregon, a woman whose husband was accidentally shot and killed during a camping trip filed a lawsuit against her husband's life insurance company. The woman claimed that the insurance company negligently failed to investigate and pay her claim for policy benefits, causing her economic harm and emotional distress. The trial court granted the insurance company's motions to dismiss the woman's negligence claim and to strike her claim for emotional distress damages. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, and the insurance company appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Oregon.The Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court held that the woman had pleaded facts sufficient to give rise to a legally cognizable common-law negligence claim for emotional distress damages. The court reasoned that the woman, as the surviving spouse of a deceased breadwinner, had a legally protected interest sufficient to support a common-law negligence claim for emotional distress damages against her husband's life insurance company for failure to reasonably investigate and promptly pay her claim for insurance benefits. The court concluded that the insurance claim practices that Oregon law requires and the emotional harm that foreseeably may occur if that law is violated are sufficiently weighty to merit imposition of liability for common-law negligence and recovery of emotional distress damages. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Oregon reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union" on Justia Law

The case involves the defendant, Jason Thomas Wilcox, who was taken into police custody for public intoxication under ORS 430.399, a noncriminal statute. During this process, the police seized and inventoried his backpack, discovering a butterfly knife. As Wilcox had a prior felony conviction, he was charged and convicted for being a felon in possession of a restricted weapon under ORS 166.270(2). Wilcox appealed, arguing that the seizure of his backpack was unlawful under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding that the seizure was unlawful, and based its decision on a previous case, State v. Edwards.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals had erred in its analysis because it treated the seizure as a criminal one rather than an administrative one. The Court pointed out that when a person or their property is seized under ORS 430.399, the seizure is administrative, not criminal, and such seizures must comply with a different set of constitutional standards. The Court also clarified that the state’s interference with a person’s possessory or ownership interests constitutes a seizure, regardless of whether the person objects to the interference.The Supreme Court held that the seizure of the backpack was indeed a seizure. However, it did not decide whether the seizure was lawful, instead remanding the case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether ORS 430.399, or some other source of authority, authorized the seizure of defendant’s backpack and if so, whether that seizure was effectuated in accordance with the requirements of State v. Atkinson, which set the framework for assessing the constitutionality of an administrative search or seizure. View "State v. Wilcox" on Justia Law

In the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, Inez Gollersrud and David Gollersrud, individuals, filed a case against LPMC, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company. The case revolved around the question of whether email communications between a client and their attorney, sent from and stored on the client’s employer’s email system, are confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege. The court was also asked to consider if an employee leaving those email messages on the employer’s email system upon ending employment constitutes a waiver of attorney-client privilege.The court held that communications between a client and an attorney for the purpose of facilitating professional legal services are presumptively confidential. The client’s mere use of an employer’s email system does not overcome this presumption. Additionally, it was determined that leaving emails on the employer's system does not establish actual disclosure of communications, a necessary condition for a waiver of privilege under OEC 511. The court concluded that the record was insufficient to demonstrate a lack of privilege or that such privilege had been waived. As a result, the court issued a peremptory writ of mandamus. View "Gollersrud v. LPMC, LLC" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, the defendant, William Jack Parkerson, had been convicted of assault in the first degree and sentenced under Oregon’s dangerous offender statutes. The defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial court had violated ORS 161.735 by sentencing him as a dangerous offender without reviewing new presentence investigation and psychological evaluation reports specifically prepared for this case. He also argued that the determinate part of his sentence exceeded the maximum sentence allowed by ORS 161.605 and OAR 213-008-0003(2).The Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed with the defendant that the trial court had erred in sentencing him as a dangerous offender using old presentence investigation and psychological evaluation reports. The court held that ORS 161.735 requires the court to consider new reports prepared for the case. Therefore, the case was remanded to the lower court for resentencing.However, the Supreme Court of Oregon disagreed with the defendant's argument that the determinate part of his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. The court concluded that the maximum determinate part of a dangerous offender sentence that may be imposed is twice the presumptive sentence under the sentencing guidelines, and thus, the 260-month determinate part of the sentence imposed by the trial court did not exceed the maximum allowed by the statute. View "State v. Parkerson" on Justia Law

In the case brought before the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, two petitioners, Hugh Ady and Reed Scott-Schwalbach, challenged the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 30 (2024) (IP 30). IP 30 proposed to establish a program providing state funding to families incurring "qualified expenses" for educating their children outside of the public school system. The funding would have been provided through a new "Education Savings Account Program" and would have been available to households having an adjusted gross income of $125,000 or less.The petitioners raised several objections to the ballot title, which the court mostly rejected. However, the court agreed with petitioner Scott-Schwalbach that the "yes" result statement and the summary were inaccurate in stating that IP 30 "allows additional virtual charter programs." The court clarified that state law doesn't cap virtual charter programs, but rather enrollment in those programs. IP 30 proposed to increase the enrollment cap, not the number of programs. As such, the court referred the "yes" result statement and the summary back to the Attorney General for correction. View "Ady v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

In the case of PNW Metal Recycling, Inc., et al. v. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) internal decision to adopt a new interpretation of a statute did not constitute a "rule" under the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA).The case emerged when the DEQ changed its interpretation of the "auto-dismantler exception" in the solid waste management regulations. Previously, facilities dismantling and recycling used vehicles were not required to obtain a permit for solid waste disposal, even if they also disposed of non-vehicle solid waste. However, in 2018, the DEQ informed the petitioners that it had revised its interpretation of the relevant statutes, and the facilities would now be required to obtain permits.The petitioners, who operate such facilities, challenged this change, arguing that the DEQ's new position constituted a "rule", meaning it should have been adopted following the APA rulemaking procedures. The Court of Appeals agreed with the petitioners and held the DEQ's decision invalid.However, the Oregon Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and dismissed the judicial review. The court reasoned that an agency's internal decision to adopt a new statutory interpretation is not, by itself, a "rule" under the APA. Instead, a "rule" is a more formal, generally applicable agency directive, standard, regulation, or statement that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy.The court highlighted that the APA provides different avenues for agencies to announce policy, not all of which require formal rulemaking. Specifically, an agency can announce a general policy applicable to a case and future similar cases during a contested case proceeding, without going through formal rulemaking procedures. The court concluded that the DEQ's revised interpretation of the auto-dismantler exception and its stated intention to require the petitioners to obtain a permit were precursors to an enforcement action that may lead to a contested case proceeding, not a rule. The decision of the Court of Appeals was vacated, and the judicial review was dismissed. View "PNW Metal Recycling, Inc. v. DEQ" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, the parents of three children under the jurisdiction of the Department of Human Services (DHS) appealed the juvenile court's decision to change the placement preference for their children from the mother's home to foster care. However, while the appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, the juvenile court issued additional decisions determining that substitute care was still the appropriate placement preference for the children. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot due to these subsequent judgments, ruling that it could not conclude without speculation that the challenged judgments would have a practical effect on the parents' rights. The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding that the Court of Appeals had incorrectly placed the burden on the parents to prove that the appeal was not moot, rather than on DHS to prove that it was. However, the Supreme Court found that the juvenile court's subsequent dismissal of the dependency cases altogether did render the appeals moot, as the parents and the children were no longer wards of the court and the original substitute-care placement determination no longer had a practical effect on the parties. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeals as moot. View "Dept. of Human Services v. T. J. N." on Justia Law

This case concerned the parentage of a child conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART). Jordan Schnitzer wanted to have a son. Because he was single, he planned to use his own sperm, an egg donor, and a gestational carrier. Cory Sause contributed her eggs. A gestational carrier gave birth to a boy, S. Afterward, the gestational carrier, her spouse, and Schnitzer agreed that Schnitzer—and not the gestational carrier or her spouse— was S’s intended parent, and a declaratory judgment was entered to that effect. Schnitzer and Sause, however, disagreed about whether Sause was also S’s parent and about whether Schnitzer could prevent Sause from having a relationship with S. The trial court concluded that Sause was S’s legal parent based on her undisputed genetic connection to S; a divided Court of Appeals reversed. The Oregon Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court and concluded that, in the circumstances of this case, Sause’s genetic connection to S did not establish her legal parentage of S. The Supreme Court also concluded that Sause may have contracted with Schnitzer for certain non-parental rights with respect to S. "The extent of those rights is an issue that the trial court did not reach due to its conclusion that Sause was a parent." The Supreme Court therefore reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings to declare the legal parentage of S and to determine the extent of Sause’s nonparental rights with respect to S. View "In re: Sause and Schnitzer" on Justia Law

At issue in this case is whether ORS 12.115(1) applied to actions in which plaintiffs allege their attorney negligently caused injury consisting solely of financial loss—here, the cost to plaintiffs of attempting to defend themselves against a claim for unpaid federal taxes and the anticipated cost of paying that tax liability. To this, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded the legislature intended the phrase “negligent injury to person or property” in ORS 12.115(1) to include negligence claims seeking to recover for the kind of injury to economic interests that plaintiffs have alleged. View "Marshall v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP" on Justia Law