Dean F. Bryson

In this case, a plumber sued a building owner in quantum meruit to recover the reasonable value of labor and materials supplied for plumbing work on a new office building, after the owner disputed only the amount owed. The jury awarded the full amount claimed, and the trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the owner's proposed testimony on value was properly excluded due to lack of an offer of proof, that certain statements about bid acceptance were either invited on cross-examination or harmless given the narrow issue of reasonable value, and that evidence of comparable installations was dissimilar and thus within the trial court's discretion to exclude.

procedureproperty

In Rosalez v. Unigard Insurance, the plaintiff, who had obtained an unsatisfied personal injury judgment against the defendant's insured arising from a 1973 automobile accident, sued the insurer under ORS 743.783 to recover on the policy. The insurer raised an affirmative defense of noncooperation, alleging the insured failed to provide notice of his whereabouts, assist in defense or settlement, or attend trial. The trial court, sitting as finder of fact in this action at law, ruled for the plaintiff after finding insufficient evidence of willful noncooperation or prejudice to the insurer. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the insurer failed to make a substantial showing of diligence in locating the insured (who had moved abroad) or that any noncooperation was willful, and that substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the validity of a probation condition imposed after a guilty plea to forgery, which barred the defendant from associating with any person ever convicted of a crime, including her husband. The trial court justified the restriction based on the husband's alleged greater culpability and the crimes' commission in conjunction with him. On review, the Oregon Supreme Court addressed appealability of probation orders under ORS 138.050 and the scope of review for conditions, holding that such conditions must be proportionate to the offense and related to rehabilitation and public safety without unduly restricting protected rights such as marriage. The court resolved the matter on statutory rather than constitutional grounds, emphasizing that probation aims include rehabilitation consistent with individual freedoms.

criminal lawfamily lawcivil rights

This case concerns a petition to the Oregon Supreme Court under ORS 254.077 challenging the Attorney General's ballot title for a proposed initiative to add to the state constitution a provision declaring that 'each human form is possessed of a life right not to be violated or otherwise impaired by law.' Petitioners contended that the title was insufficient and unfair because its caption did not identify the measure as a constitutional amendment or address its potential effects on abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, and contraception, and because the abbreviated statement merely repeated the measure's language. The court reviewed the title solely for statutory compliance, requiring it to be concise, impartial, and not insufficient or unfair, and certified a modified ballot title that added 'CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT' to the caption and placed quotation marks around key terms from the measure. The court reasoned that the Attorney General could not speculate on the vague measure's effects without violating impartiality requirements, that such interpretations belong to later judicial proceedings or public debate, and that the title should let the measure's own language speak for itself.

electionsabortion

The national Berean Fundamental Church sued the local Brookings congregation, its pastor, and council to regain possession of church real property titled in the national body's name and to enjoin use of the church name. The local defendants counterclaimed that they had deeded the property to the national organization in reliance on oral representations that it would be held in trust and reconveyed if disputes arose, and that a confidential relationship existed between the parties. The trial court found that the deed was given without consideration, that the local congregation supplied all purchase and maintenance funds, and that a confidential relationship supported imposition of a constructive trust; it ordered the national body to convey title to the defendants. On de novo review, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence established the elements for a constructive trust under Restatement of Restitution § 182 because of the confidential relationship and the national representative's assurances to the local congregation.

property

This case involved a breach of contract claim by plaintiff Wilsonville Concrete Products against defendant Todd Building Co. for lost profits on undelivered pre-mix concrete. The parties had entered a requirements contract for concrete to be used in constructing a state hospital security unit, but the state terminated its prime contract with the defendant due to zoning violations, leading the defendant to refuse further deliveries. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under ORS 72.3060 and UCC principles, a requirements buyer is obligated only to purchase goods in good faith, and the state's termination ended the defendant's good faith needs without any indication of bad faith. The court reasoned that the contract did not require the buyer to accept quantities beyond its actual, good-faith requirements for the project.

business & regulatory