Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioners McCann and Harmon sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 33 (2014). Initiative Petition 33 (IP 33) would make substantive changes to Oregon tax law. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the ballot title for IP 33 gave voters less information than they need to understand adequately the change that the measure would make. The ballot title referred to Attorney General for modification. View "McCann v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on alternative legal and equitable claims for damages and a constructive trust on real property that arose from the same breach of fiduciary duty. The primary issue on review was whether plaintiff's election of the equitable constructive trust remedy was foreclosed by a jury determination that plaintiff's damages for the breach of fiduciary duty were $1. The Court concluded that the trial court properly permitted plaintiff to elect its equitable remedy. View "Evergreen West Business Center, LLC v. Emmert" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 31 (2014). IP 31 ("Oregon Lottery Local Control Act") was a proposed constitutional amendment that would dedicate 50 percent of state lottery net proceeds to a "county revenue distribution fund." IP 31 would amend the Oregon Constitution to provide that "50% of the net proceeds from the State Lottery shall be deposited in a county revenue distribution fund to be created by the Legislative Assembly." Upon review, the Supreme Court found that IP 31's the caption did not reasonably identify the subject matter of the measure as required by Oregon law. Therefore the Court referred the caption to the Attorney General for modification. View "Milne v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

In 2005, the Oregon Legislature added a new exception to the prohibition against the admission of hearsay evidence. Throughout the litigation, defendant argued that his wife's hearsay statements did not come within the terms of that exception and that, if they did, admitting her statements violated his rights under the state and federal constitutions. The trial court disagreed, a jury convicted defendant of aggravated murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision and the trial court's judgment. View "Oregon v. Supanchick" on Justia Law

Lois McIntyre was the 1930 "Queen of the Pendleton Round-Up." As queen, she was given a "Queen Outfit" that consisted of a white satin shirt, a white leather vest and riding skirt with black and white fringe, and a black scarf. In 1964, McIntyre's son and plaintiff's husband, inherited the outfit from McIntyre. Shortly after inheriting the outfit, plaintiff and her husband were approached by Lieuallen, who requested that she be given the outfit. However, plaintiff and her husband refused to give it to her. Plaintiff and her husband later decided to display the outfit at the Pendleton Round-Up and Happy Canyon Hall of Fame. They delivered the outfit to Lieuallen for her to deliver to the Hall of Fame for that purpose, but did not gift or transfer ownership of the outfit to Lieuallen. Lieuallen delivered the outfit to the Hall of Fame as directed. In 1972, while the outfit was still on display at the Hall of Fame, plaintiff's husband passed away, and plaintiff inherited the outfit. In 2000, defendant, an heir of Lieuallen, went to the Hall of Fame and demanded return of the outfit on behalf of Lieuallen. The Hall of Fame promptly complied with defendant's request, and defendant gained possession of the outfit. Plaintiff, who is legally blind, was unaware that the outfit had been removed from the Hall of Fame. Plaintiff did not learn of the transfer until June 2007, when the Hall of Fame displays were moved to a new building. Plaintiff then demanded that defendant return the outfit, and defendant refused. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court was whether the six-year statute of limitations applicable to conversion and replevin claims under ORS 12.080(4) incorporated a "discovery rule" to determine when such claims "accrue." The Court of Appeals concluded that the limitation prescribed by ORS 12.080(4) begins to run at the time of the wrongful taking of personal property and that the provision does not incorporate a discovery rule. Thus, it affirmed the trial court's judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint as time-barred. On review, the Supreme Court held that plaintiff's allegations adequately invoked a discovery rule as recognized in "Berry v. Branner," (421 P2d 996 (1966)), and reversed. View "Rice v. Rabb" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant of possession of a weapon by an inmate. The State conceded on appeal that the trial court erred when it denied defendant's request that it instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense of attempted possession of a weapon by an inmate. The Court of Appeals rejected the State's argument that the error was harmless and reversed. Finding no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "State v. Zolotoff" on Justia Law

Initiative Petition 30, if adopted, would have changed the minimum tax corporations paid: it would have eliminated the current cap on minimum taxes, and changed the cap on certain others. Petitioners sought review of the certified ballot title for IP 30 (2014). After the Supreme Court conducted its review, the Court referred the caption, “yes” and “no” result statements and the initiative summary back to the Attorney General for further modification. View "McCann / Harmon v. Rosenblum" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant James Watson's motion to suppress evidence. Police stopped defendant to investigate a traffic violation but decided not to issue a citation. Defendant was nevertheless detained, and he argued that that detention was a violation of his constitutional rights. Police would uncover marijuana, cocaine and related paraphernalia inside defendant's car. After review of the trial court's record, the Supreme Court concluded that the detention was for further investigation, and was reasonably related to the traffic stop.View "Oregon v. Watson" on Justia Law

In a wage claim case, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) correctly determined that a business entity, Blachana, LLC, was a "successor" employer and must, therefore, reimburse BOLI for wages paid from the Wage Security Fund on behalf of four wage claimants. The employees had worked for NW Sportsbar Inc. before that corporation went out of business and surrendered its property and business to Blachana. The Court of Appeals reversed the holding that Blachana was not a "successor to the business" of NW Sportsbar. The Supreme Court concluded that BOLI did not err in deciding that an entity is a successor to a business if it "conducted essentially the same business as conducted by the predecessor." View "Blanchana, LLC v. Bureau of Labor & Industries" on Justia Law

Four cases challenged the constitutionality of Senate Bill (SB) 822, which was passed by the 2013 Legislative Assembly during its regular session, and SB 861, passed during a special session in October 2013. Both bills changed certain statutory provisions of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) and, in doing so, affected the retirement benefits of some current and former public employees. Central Oregon Irrigation District (the District), an intervenor in these proceedings, filed a motion to disqualify the sitting judges of the Oregon Supreme Court from hearing these cases. The District also filed a separate motion to disqualify the circuit judge appointed by the Supreme Court to serve as a special master for purposes of conducting evidentiary proceedings and preparing recommended findings of fact. Because disqualification would leave petitioners without a tribunal to decide their claims, and in light of the legislature's express grant of jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to decide challenges to the 2013 PERS legislation, the Court concluded that the rule of necessity applied and that the members of Court were not disqualified from deciding these cases because of any interest in the proceeding. Further, the application of the rule of necessity in these circumstances was not a denial of due process. Central Oregon Irrigation District's motions to disqualify the members of the Supreme Court and the Special Master on this matter was denied. View "Moro v. Oregon" on Justia Law