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

The case involved plaintiffs who entered into an earnest money agreement to purchase real property from defendant and later sought to recover their $100 earnest money and $1,000 down payment after vacating the property. Plaintiffs presented the case at trial as one of mutual rescission but failed to prove that the parties had mutually agreed to rescind. The trial court entered judgment for defendant, ruling that plaintiffs had not established the allegations in their complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed, concluding there was evidence to support the trial court's finding and that plaintiffs could not shift to a new theory of unilateral rescission not raised below.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a defendant arrested on assault charges who was advised of his Miranda rights in English and Spanish, signed a waiver form, and consented to a search of bus station lockers without being explicitly told he could refuse; the search yielded evidence linking him to a murder, and he later confessed after initially requesting counsel. The trial court denied suppression of the evidence and confession, the jury convicted on murder and robbery charges, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. On review, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the consent to search was valid and the statements admissible, ruling that police need not inform a suspect in custody of the right to refuse consent for the consent to be voluntary under either the Fourth Amendment or Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. The court overruled its prior decisions in State v. Williams and State v. Douglas, adopting the U.S. Supreme Court's approach in United States v. Watson that the absence of such a warning is not controlling and that a case-by-case voluntariness inquiry suffices.

criminal lawprocedure

In Jones v. Emanuel Hospital, a worker filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging her congenital foot, leg, and back condition was aggravated by standing on hard floors at her job, but the employer neither accepted nor denied the claim for over six months and made no interim payments. The court affirmed the denial of the underlying claim on the merits, as medical evidence supported the finding that the condition was not employment-related. It reversed on the interim compensation issue, holding that ORS 656.262 requires an employer to either deny a claim or begin interim payments within 14 days of notice, and that the eventual non-compensability of the claim does not relieve this obligation or allow the employer to delay both acceptance/denial and payments. The court further concluded that the employer's unreasonable delay entitled the worker to penalties up to 25 percent of the amounts due plus attorney fees, to be determined on remand.

labor & employment

The case concerned a contract logger who purchased a defective Barko diesel log loader from defendant Dravo Equipment Company, later revoked acceptance under the UCC, and sued for breach of contract seeking damages including return of the purchase price and consequential lost profits. The jury found the revocation proper, awarded plaintiff specified damages, and granted defendant a setoff for the loader's rental value; defendant appealed only the lost-profits award, arguing insufficient supporting evidence. The court reviewed the expert testimony calculating potential skidding and loading capacity, additional labor and equipment costs, and net lost income during the claim period, concluding that this evidence met the threshold for submission to the jury under the preponderance standard. The judgment on the verdict was therefore affirmed.

business & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over an earnest money agreement for the purchase of a house, where buyers Helmer deposited funds in escrow with Transamerica but later sought to withdraw, claiming sellers Nelson failed to close on agreed dates, while the sellers counterclaimed for damages due to the buyers' breach. The trial court found the buyers' excuses for withdrawing unfounded, ruled they had breached, and awarded the sellers partial damages from the escrow funds rather than the full amount sought. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the sellers' amendment of their counterclaim from specific performance to damages was not barred by election of remedies doctrine and that the reduced damages award was supported by substantial evidence as a general verdict.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned whether a worker's compensation award deposited in a bank account remained exempt from attachment and garnishment under ORS 656.234 after the beneficiary received it. Plaintiff alleged that defendants improperly seized the funds via garnishment and sought their return plus punitive damages. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the statutory exemption applies only to moneys payable prior to receipt by the workman. The court reasoned that the statute's language limits protection to funds before payment, and legislative history showed an earlier broader exemption for paid amounts had been deliberately removed. It noted the law serves to protect payers from garnishments while ensuring benefits reach the worker intact but does not extend indefinitely thereafter.

labor & employmentprocedure

Plaintiffs sued their mortgage broker and closing agent, Charter First Mortgage, for damages after Charter failed to perform a well pump test it had charged for during the purchase of residential property, which would have revealed the property's inadequate water supply. Charter defended on grounds of res judicata and election of remedies, citing plaintiffs' prior successful suit for rescission against the property sellers that resulted in a decree returning the purchase price and related costs. The trial court struck these affirmative defenses, and a jury found an implied contract existed obligating Charter to obtain the test and that its breach caused plaintiffs' damages. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the present action arose from a separate implied contract with Charter independent of the land sale contract with the sellers, so the prior rescission decree did not bar the claim.

propertyprocedure

In this case, a husband sued for loss of consortium damages after his wife was injured in a car accident, with the cases consolidated for trial; the defendant admitted liability but contested damages. The jury awarded the wife compensation for her personal injuries but found against the husband on his separate claim. The court affirmed the verdict, reasoning that the jury could properly disbelieve the testimony of the plaintiff, his wife, and their son regarding the intimate effects on the marriage, given their interest in the outcome and the lack of objective evidence. The court also upheld the admission of defense experts' opinions based on accident photographs to assess impact severity and rejected the introduction of a non-testifying doctor's discogram report as hearsay not subject to cross-examination.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose when plaintiff Lillian Taylor sued defendants for injuries from falling out a second-story window on their property, alleging in two counts that she was present either for defendants' business purpose or by their invitation and that they failed to warn of concealed dangerous conditions. The trial court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the first count after reviewing deposition testimony, finding no genuine issue that plaintiff was not on the premises for a business purpose benefiting defendants. Plaintiff declined to amend and instead took a voluntary nonsuit on the second count, then appealed the partial summary judgment. The court decided that such an appeal is allowable because the nonsuit was effectively involuntary due to the prior ruling, and res judicata would bar relitigation of the claims, preventing piecemeal appeals while allowing review of the summary judgment's propriety.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned Lane County Escrow Service suing defendants Smith and Coe to recover funds embezzled from its bank trust account, along with related equitable relief including an accounting and constructive trust. The trial court found that Smith and Coe jointly committed actual fraud by knowingly withdrawing and using approximately $655,000 in trust funds for personal purposes, resulting in a $387,000 net loss to the plaintiff, and entered a decree imposing a constructive trust on traceable assets, requiring an accounting, and awarding a joint and several money judgment. Defendant Coe appealed, arguing he was merely a borrower unaware of the funds' source and that new evidence warranted a rehearing, but the court reviewed the record de novo, credited the trial court's credibility findings against Coe, and affirmed the decree in full while also upholding the denial of the new-trial motion on both evidentiary and procedural grounds that such relief is unavailable in equity suits.

propertycriminal lawprocedure

This case is an original mandamus proceeding brought by the administrator of the Children’s Services Division challenging a juvenile court order that required the Division to pay for psychiatric evaluations of parents and a stepfather in two child custody matters. The court had placed the children in the Division’s temporary custody under ORS 419.507 and ordered the evaluations to help decide custody, but the Division objected only to paying for the adults’ examinations. The Oregon Supreme Court held that the county, not the Division, must pay for those evaluations. The core reasoning was that ORS 3.250(2) and ORS 3.280(3) classify such court-ordered psychiatric services as “court services” payable by the county, while statutes such as ORS 418.015(2) and ORS 419.519 limit the Division’s duty to providing services only for children in its custody; a prior decision, State ex rel. Segrest v. Bradshaw, supported the same allocation of payment responsibility.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff who sued Lane County and its officials for damages after they obtained a temporary injunction that halted his excavation activities and was later dissolved when he prevailed at trial. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding potential liability on an implied contract theory under ORS 32.020. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that no action for wrongful injunction lies against the county absent an undertaking or bond. The core reasoning was that ORS 22.010 expressly exempts counties from furnishing bonds in such proceedings, historical common law requires a bond for recovery of damages, and there is no basis in statute or precedent for implying contractual liability in its absence.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved the interpretation of Oregon statute ORS 311.505(2), which governs the calculation of interest on delinquent real property taxes. The plaintiff challenged the tax collector's method of charging interest for a partial month by rounding up to a full month after paying taxes in September 1974. The Tax Court ruled for the plaintiff, requiring proration based on days, but the Oregon Supreme Court reversed, determining that the statute's language was ambiguous and that the longstanding administrative practice of rounding up fractions of a month to a full month aligned with legislative intent to simplify tax collection procedures. The court overruled prior precedents that automatically construed ambiguous tax statutes in favor of taxpayers, emphasizing instead the need to ascertain the legislature's purpose without bias toward either party.

taxespropertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute between adjoining landowners over rights to spring and seepage water accumulating near a shared irrigation ditch, where the plaintiff held a state water permit to capture it and the defendant claimed a prescriptive easement to divert the flow across the plaintiff's land. The trial court permanently enjoined the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's water use or entering the property except along an existing ditch easement, while also awarding the defendant $500 in damages on a counterclaim for trespass. On appeal, the court affirmed the injunctions and the trespass judgment, reasoning that water discharged from an irrigation system reverts to public ownership and may be appropriated on one's own land but does not justify trespass onto another's property to capture it. The court further held that the plaintiff had failed to prove a prescriptive easement and that the $500 award adequately compensated the defendant for crop losses from the trespass, without requiring proof of additional cultivation expenses.

propertytorts & liability