Edward N. Fadeley

In Miller v. Water Wonderland Improvement District, a member of a water district corporation formed under ORS chapter 554 filed a complaint for declaratory relief after the district refused his request to inspect and copy its records, including board meeting minutes. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendant based on the Public Records Law, and the Court of Appeals affirmed without addressing the specific corporate statute. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, ruling that ORS 554.120(1) directly governs access for members of such corporations and entitles the plaintiff to inspect the referenced records as well as obtain copies at actual and reasonable cost.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a challenge to Measure 8, a 1994 voter initiative that sought to add three separate sections to Article IX of the Oregon Constitution on taxation and government finance. Plaintiffs, including former governors, judges, cities, and employee associations, argued that the measure violated state constitutional limits on the initiative process by bundling multiple amendments into a single proposal requiring one up-or-down vote. The Lane County circuit court ruled for plaintiffs, holding that the measure constituted an improper revision rather than a valid single amendment and was thus unenforceable through the initiative. The Oregon Supreme Court dismissed the state's appeal as moot based on its simultaneous decision in a related case, Oregon State Police Officers' Assn. v. State of Oregon.

electionsproceduretaxes

This case involved the suppression of evidence seized during a warrantless search of a defendant's automobile following a traffic stop for excessive muffler noise, where the driver was arrested for driving while revoked. The trial court suppressed the evidence found in a gym bag and trunk, ruling there was insufficient probable cause to search the vehicle based solely on drugs and paraphernalia found in passengers' purses. The Court of Appeals reversed, applying the automobile exception, but the Oregon Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the facts did not establish probable cause for the vehicle search and that the state could not rely on an unpreserved theory of search incident to a passenger's arrest. The court affirmed the trial court's suppression order, finding no valid basis for the warrantless search under the Oregon Constitution.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a statutory review of a ballot title for a legislatively referred measure that would amend the Oregon Constitution to require a three-fifths majority vote in each chamber of the legislature to pass bills for raising revenue. Petitioner challenged the Attorney General's certified ballot title, arguing that the phrase 'bills for raising revenue' was unclear to voters and should be replaced with terms like 'bills enacting taxes,' and further sought a judicial interpretation that the measure would apply to bills lowering revenue. The court upheld and certified the existing ballot title without modification. It reasoned that the longstanding constitutional phrase is simple and understandable, that substantial compliance with statutory standards for ballot titles is sufficient, and that arguments about the measure's potential application or effects belong in campaign arguments rather than the neutral ballot title itself.

electionstaxes

This case involved an employer, an evangelical Christian, who repeatedly invited his employee to church and made statements about the employee's sinful behavior and need to attend church to be a good painter, prompting a religious discrimination complaint under ORS 659.030(1)(b). The Bureau of Labor and Industries found the employer had violated the statute by creating a hostile work environment, but the Court of Appeals reversed on constitutional grounds, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the employer established an affirmative defense under Article I, sections 2 and 3, of the Oregon Constitution, which protect the free exercise of religion and rights of conscience. The core reasoning was that the employer's conduct constituted protected religious practice, he lacked knowledge that it was unwelcome, and enforcing the anti-discrimination law against him would impermissibly interfere with his constitutional religious freedoms.

labor & employmentreligious libertycivil rights

The case concerns a breach of contract claim by the Tuckers against their former attorney Thompson, alleging excessive fees under earlier hourly and contingent fee agreements from a prior lawsuit against Toyoda. The court granted partial summary judgment to Thompson, holding that a later three-party settlement agreement among the Tuckers, Toyoda, and Thompson—which addressed payment of attorney fees, released Thompson's lien, and included an integration clause—superseded and discharged the prior fee agreements. The core reasoning was that the July agreement constituted a substituted contract covering the same subject matter of attorney compensation, with the clients receiving new rights and relief from old obligations under established principles of contract novation.

business & regulatory