Robert D. Durham

This case involved petitioners challenging the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 18 (2012), which proposes to prohibit estate, inheritance, and certain property transfer taxes. The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed whether the ballot title substantially complied with statutory requirements under ORS 250.035(2). The court determined that the caption inaccurately suggested the measure affects all estates rather than only those over $1 million, and the "yes" and "no" statements failed to clearly inform voters about the current tax threshold. Consequently, the court referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modifications to the caption and result statements.

electionstaxes

This case concerns petitioners' challenge to the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 12 (2012), a proposed state constitutional amendment that would require elections officials to count all qualified voters' signatures on initiative or referendum petitions and would limit the effect of anti-fraud laws on signature counting. The court reviewed the ballot title under ORS 250.085(5) to determine whether it substantially complied with ORS 250.035, after summarizing the constitutional and statutory framework governing signature collection, verification, and counting for initiatives and referendums. The court agreed in part with petitioners' objections to the caption, result-of-vote statements, and summary, finding inaccuracies such as an implication that the measure prevents enactment of new laws, and therefore referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification.

elections

In State v. Sierra, a defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree kidnapping and two counts of second-degree kidnapping, among other crimes. On appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court previously affirmed the first-degree conviction but reversed the second-degree ones due to insufficient evidence, remanding for further proceedings. Upon the state's petition for reconsideration, the court clarified that the remand must include resentencing on the remaining convictions, as required by ORS 138.222(5)(b), which mandates such resentencing when an appellate court reverses some felony convictions but affirms others.

criminal lawprocedure

This criminal case involved defendant’s challenge to his kidnapping convictions after he used a crossbow to force three store employees to move within a convenience store following a confrontation. The trial court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions. On review, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the first-degree kidnapping conviction of one victim, finding sufficient evidence that the defendant moved him from outside to inside the store with intent to interfere with his liberty. It reversed the two second-degree kidnapping convictions, holding that the evidence was insufficient to show the victims were taken from one place to another, as their movement occurred entirely within the same store area behind the diesel desk.

criminal law

The case involved a personal injury claim by Alan Cler against Oregon Hematology Oncology Associates, PC, alleging that one of its nurses negligently administered intravenous chemotherapy, causing severe tissue damage when the drug leaked from his vein. At trial, the defense mentioned in opening statements an oncology nurse expert who would testify that the care met the standard, but did not call that expert; instead, during closing argument, defense counsel described facts about the expert's availability and anticipated testimony that were not in the evidentiary record. The trial court overruled objections to those statements, the jury found for the defendant, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the defense to present facts outside the record during closing argument. The court concluded that the statements were not a permissible invited response to plaintiffs' comments about the missing witness and required a new trial.

proceduretorts & liability

This case arose from a post-dissolution custody dispute in which father moved under ORS 107.135(1)(a) to modify the judgment awarding mother sole custody of the children; the trial court denied the motion, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and this court denied father's petition for review. Mother then petitioned this court for attorney fees incurred in opposing the petition for review, asserting that father had acted in bad faith. The court denied the fee petition, holding that it lacked authority to award fees because ORS 107.135(8) authorizes fees only at the trial level and ORS 19.440's extension of fee authority to "an appeal" does not encompass a denied petition for review, which is not an appeal that results in affirmance or reversal of a judgment. The court reasoned that the legislature knows how to provide explicit authority for fees after denial of review, as it did for costs under ORS 20.310(1), and no such provision exists here.

family lawprocedure