Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A condominium homeowners association sued a contractor for negligence. The contractor’s insurer refused to defend the contractor against the action, and the contractor and the homeowners association thereafter entered into a settlement that included a stipulated judgment against the contractor, a covenant by the homeowners association not to execute that judgment, and an assignment to the homeowners association of the contractor’s claims against its insurer. When the homeowners association then initiated a garnishment action against the insurer, however, the trial court dismissed the action on the ground that, under “Stubblefield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine,” (517 P2d 262 (1973)), the covenant not to execute had released the contractor from any obligation to pay the homeowners association and, in the process, necessarily released the insurer too. The homeowners association appealed, arguing that “Stubblefield” either was distinguishable on its facts or had been superseded by statute. In the alternative, it argued that Stubblefield should have been overruled. The Court of Appeals affirmed. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that, although Stubblefield was not distinguishable and had not been superseded by statute, it was wrongly decided. The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Brownstone Homes Condo. Assn. v. Brownstone Forest Hts." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that, after being served alcohol at defendant’s bar when he was visibly intoxicated, a patron, Mayfield, walked down the street to another business location and, without intending to do so, fired a gun through the doorway, causing injuries to plaintiffs. The trial court granted defendant’s summary judgment motion, concluding that plaintiffs had presented insufficient evidence to permit an inference that the type of harm that plaintiffs suffered was reasonably foreseeable to defendant when it served alcohol to Mayfield while he was visibly intoxicated. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the ensuing judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claim against defendant. On review, the Supreme Court concluded plaintiffs’ evidence was not sufficient to permit a trier of fact to find that the harm that plaintiffs suffered was a reasonably foreseeable risk of defendant’s conduct. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "Chapman v. Mayfield" on Justia Law

For the 2006 tax year, taxpayers Mike and Sheri Hillenga claimed, among other things, a deduction based on a net operating loss carryover from their 2004 tax return. The Department of Revenue challenged the 2006 deduction, contending that taxpayers did not actually have a net operating loss in 2004 that could be applied against their 2006 taxes. The Tax Court held that the department could not challenge the 2004 deductions that resulted in the net operating loss carryover, because the 2004 tax year was closed by the statute of limitations. The department appealed. On appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with the department: by attempting to carry over their 2004 net operating loss to apply against their 2006 tax liability, taxpayers put the validity of their 2004 net operating loss at issue. Because the department was not trying to assess a deficiency for 2004, the statute of limitations did not apply. View "Hillenga v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant of 10 counts of rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse. When a jury finds a defendant guilty of multiple offenses, a trial court must make two related but separate sentencing decisions. One decision involves the length of the sentence for each conviction. The other involves whether the convictions should run concurrently or consecutively. On appeal in this case, the Court of Appeals concluded that both rules increased defendant’s sentence based on facts that, under “Apprendi v. New Jersey,” (530 US 466 (2000)), a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court should have submitted those facts to the jury, it held that the failure to do so was harmless error. On review, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the two sentencing guidelines rules do not implicate Apprendi and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision on that ground. View "Oregon v. Cuevas" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were two individuals who purchased Marlboro Light cigarettes in Oregon. Defendant Philip Morris was the company that manufactured, marketed, and sold Marlboro Lights. Plaintiffs brought this action under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), alleging that defendant misrepresented that Marlboro Lights would deliver less tar and nicotine than regular Marlboros and that, as a result of that misrepresentation, plaintiffs suffered economic losses. Plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of approximately 100,000 individuals who had purchased at least one pack of Marlboro Lights in Oregon over a 30-year period (from 1971 to 2001). The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion after concluding that individual inquiries so predominated over common ones that a class action was not a superior means to adjudicate the putative class’s UTPA claim. On appeal, a majority of the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court’s predominance assessment, concluding that the essential elements of the UTPA claim could be proved through evidence common to the class. The majority remanded to the trial court to reconsider whether, without the trial court’s predominance assessment, a class action was a superior means of litigating the class claims. In granting defendant’s petition for review, the Supreme Court considered whether common issues predominated for purposes of the class action certification decision, and what a private plaintiff in a UTPA case of this nature had to prove. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court properly denied class certification, and accordingly, it reversed the contrary decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the individual plaintiffs’ claims. View "Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc." on Justia Law

Relator was 14 years old when he committed murder in 1998. Relator was waived into adult court and convicted of aggravated murder. The court sentenced relator to life imprisonment with a 30-year mandatory minimum period of incarceration. After relator had served roughly half of that period, he obtained a “second look” hearing under ORS 420A.203. The trial court entered a preliminary order of conditional release, but the state appealed that order to the Court of Appeals. At issue in this mandamus proceeding was the trial court’s related “direction” to the Department of Corrections, pursuant to ORS 420A.206(1)(a), requiring it to prepare a proposed release plan. Relator sought, and the Supreme Court issued, an alternative writ of mandamus ordering the department to comply with the trial court’s direction or to show cause for not doing so. The department, however, contended that its obligation to comply was automatically stayed under ORS 138.160. The Supreme Court disagreed and ordered the department to comply with the trial court’s direction to prepare and submit a proposed plan of release. View "Oregon ex rel Walraven v. Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

In January 2011, defendant was indicted on 21 felony counts, including nine counts of aggravated murder, for allegedly causing the death of Rainier Police Chief Ralph Painter. Shortly after defendant was indicted, his attorneys became concerned about his ability to aid and assist in his defense. The defense hired a psychiatrist (Dr. Larsen) to evaluate defendant. Larsen concluded that defendant suffered from psychosis and possibly schizophrenia, and recommended that defendant be treated with antipsychotic medication. In this mandamus proceeding, the issue presented for the Oregon Supreme Court's review centered on the trial court's order directing relator, Oregon State Hospital (OSH), to administer involuntary medication to defendant for the purpose of restoring defendant's capacity to stand trial on felony charges. Upon review, the Court concluded that ORS 161.370(1) granted the trial court implied authority to issue the order (which was based on the trial court's assessment of all the medical evidence) even though OSH did not agree that administering the medication was medically necessary. View "Oregon State Hospital v. Butts" on Justia Law

A certified question of Oregon law was certified to the Oregon Supreme Court from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The question arose out of a construction contract dispute in which a homeowner's association sued a builder in state court for construction defects. The homeowner's association and the builder settled, and the settlement included an unconditional release and covenant not to execute against the builder. When the homeowner's association attempted to garnish the builder's liability insurance policy, however, the insurer claimed that it had no liability because the settlement unconditionally released its insured from any liability. The state trial court agreed, and the builder appealed. Meanwhile, in response to the state trial court's conclusion that the settlement agreement eliminated the insurer's liability, the homeowner's association and the builder amended their settlement agreement to eliminate the unconditional release and covenant not to execute. Pursuant to the new agreement, the builder initiated this action in federal court against its insurer. In the federal court action, the insurer argued that the state court already had determined that, given the terms of the original settlement, the builder could not recover under its insurance policy and that the parties lacked authority to create any new insurance coverage obligation by amending their settlement agreement. The federal district court agreed. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit certified a question on whether the homeowner's association and the builder could amend their settlement agreement in such a way as to revive the liability of the builder's insurer. After review, the Oregon Court concluded that, although the parties possessed authority to amend the terms of their settlement agreement, they could not do so in a way that retroactively revived the liability that was eliminated in their original agreement (at least not on the basis of the legal theories that they proposed). View "A&T Siding, Inc. v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant Capitol Specialty Insurance Co. moved to dismiss this appeal on mootness grounds. According to Capitol, the issues to be decided in the appeal pertained to the terms of an agreement settling an underlying construction defect case, but those terms were superseded by amendments to the agreement adopted during the pendency of the appeal. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that, because the amendments to the settlement agreement did not have the effect of superseding the terms of the original agreement, a judicial decision about that original agreement will have a practical effect on the rights of the parties. Consequently, the appeal was not moot, and the motion to dismiss was denied. View "Brownstone Homes Condo. Assn. v. Brownstone Forest Hts." on Justia Law

Defendants Dale and Shannon Hickman were convicted of second-degree manslaughter after they declined to seek medical treatment for their son David, who died about nine hours after he was born prematurely. Defendants are members of the Followers of Christ Church, which encourages its members to rely on God to heal sickness and injury, and considers resorting to conventional medicine as a failure in faith. At trial, defendants argued that, because they withheld medical treatment from David based on their religious beliefs, the Oregon Constitution required the state to prove that they "knew" David would die if they relied on prayer alone and, despite that knowledge, failed to seek medical treatment for him. The trial court disagreed and allowed the state to proceed on a theory of "criminal negligence," consistently with the statute defining second-degree manslaughter by neglect or maltreatment. The Court of Appeals summarily affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review to consider whether the state must prove that a criminal defendant acted with "knowledge" that an unlawful result would follow when that defendant's conduct was motivated by a sincerely held religious belief. The Court concluded that it does not. View "Oregon v. Hickman" on Justia Law