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

The case concerned whether a city's liability insurer was required to cover the defense costs of a mayor facing an ethics complaint before the Oregon Government Ethics Commission for allegedly violating conflict-of-interest rules in a land-use vote. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the insurer, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the insurance policy, which incorporated the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA), did not extend to such ethics proceedings. The court reasoned that ethics complaints under ORS chapter 244 do not qualify as tort claims because they do not assert a civil right of action for damages or a protective remedy for injured individuals, but instead serve the public interest in governmental integrity, and thus fall outside the OTCA's definition and the insurer's obligations under ORS 30.287(1).

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a challenge to the Attorney General's proposed ballot title for a voter initiative that would amend the Oregon Constitution to prohibit requiring public employees to join unions or pay dues or fair-share representation costs. Petitioners argued that the proposed question and summary failed to plainly state the measure's chief purpose and distorted existing law by implying that current statutes mandate union membership and payments. The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the title for substantial compliance with ORS 250.035 standards for captions, questions, and summaries. The court modified the question and summary to accurately reflect the legal context without overstating existing requirements and certified the revised ballot title, while upholding the caption.

labor & employmentelections

In this aggravated murder case, the defendant was interrogated by police after his court-appointed attorney had demanded to consult with him and that questioning cease until that occurred, but the defendant was not informed of the lawyer's involvement or requests. The police turned off their radios to avoid learning of the lawyer's demands and obtained videotaped incriminating statements from the defendant during the interrogation. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the statements, and they were used against him in the penalty phase, resulting in a death sentence. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statements were obtained in violation of Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution, which protects against compelled self-incrimination, because the state failed to show that the defendant knowingly waived his rights when he was unaware of his lawyer's attempts to consult with him. The court relied on prior precedent requiring that a lawyer's invocation of the right to remain silent be honored until the defendant can consult with counsel.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Jackson County's grant of a conditional use permit allowing shale mining on 40 acres of a 400-acre tract zoned Exclusive Farm Use and used as pasture. A neighbor appealed, and LUBA overturned the permit by interpreting the county ordinance's 'generally unsuitable land' criterion to require evaluating the entire 400-acre tract rather than the 40-acre site alone. The Court of Appeals reversed LUBA, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that result on different grounds, holding that LUBA exceeded its statutory review authority by rejecting the county's reasonable interpretation of its acknowledged ordinance in favor of a contradictory one. The county had found the 40 acres generally unsuitable due to rocky conditions and minimal grazing value when viewed separately, which was consistent with the ordinance's wording, purpose, and policy.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the Oregon Department of Revenue's authority to issue an administrative subpoena to Universal Foods Corp. and its subsidiary for documents related to out-of-state potato processing plants to assist in valuing similar properties in Oregon for tax purposes. The Tax Court enforced the subpoena with modifications and held the defendants in contempt for non-compliance, imposing daily sanctions. The Supreme Court interpreted ORS 305.190(1) to permit the issuance of subpoenas without the need for additional department rules or resolutions, relying on the statute's text and historical context, and addressed procedural issues regarding appeals from contempt orders.

taxesprocedure

The case concerned the interpretation of ORS 215.301, which prohibits approving asphalt cement processing plants within two miles of a vineyard. Petitioners, representing vineyard interests in an exclusive farm use zone, challenged a permit granted by Douglas County to an asphalt plant in a heavy industrial zone located less than two miles from their vineyard. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Land Use Board of Appeals and the County, holding that the statute applies only to asphalt plants located within exclusive farm use zones and does not restrict plants in other zoning districts. The court's reasoning focused on the statute's text and context, particularly its "notwithstanding" clause referencing provisions exclusive to EFU zones, indicating the two-mile limit was an exception only to rules allowing such uses in EFU areas.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This workers’ compensation case concerned a claimant’s eligibility for vocational assistance after a 1982 back injury, a 1987 stipulation settling an aggravation claim, and subsequent denials by a vocational provider and the director of the Department of Insurance and Finance. The director ruled the claimant ineligible because the stipulation did not constitute an accepted aggravation reopening tied to the compensable injury. The court held that under ORS 656.283(2) the hearing referee must conduct a contested-case hearing, develop a factual record, and independently determine whether the director’s decision is correct, rather than deferring to the director’s informal conclusion. The referee’s and Board’s more limited review was therefore erroneous, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that process.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Bost, defendants Glen and Dennis Bost were charged with manufacturing controlled substances after police executed a search warrant on premises including their residence and a trailer and seized evidence of the crimes. The trial court suppressed the evidence, concluding that police violated Oregon’s knock-and-announce statute (ORS 133.575(2)) by failing to give occupants a reasonable opportunity to respond before forcing entry, and a divided Court of Appeals affirmed. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that police did not violate the statute because the occupants had seen the marked police vehicles arrive and officers announced their identity, authority, and purpose with a search warrant, so any arguable right to resist entry had evaporated without need for additional waiting time. The court remanded the case to the trial court to consider the defendants’ unaddressed state and federal constitutional claims.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a defendant's conviction for first-degree theft, sentenced on the same day as his conviction for unlawful delivery of methamphetamine to a minor, could be counted as part of his criminal history when calculating the presumptive sentence for the drug offense under Oregon's sentencing guidelines. The trial court counted the theft conviction, resulting in a higher criminal history score and a 23-month prison term plus post-prison supervision, with the sentences running consecutively. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Oregon Supreme Court reversed that decision and affirmed the trial court's sentence. The court held that the 1989 legislative amendment to OAR 253-04-006 changed the criminal history assessment point to the time of sentencing rather than the time the current crime was committed, allowing the theft conviction to be included. A separate claim regarding the lack of findings for consecutive sentences was not preserved and was rejected.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a challenge to a certified ballot title for two identical proposed initiative measures that would amend the Oregon Constitution to require public employees to contribute six percent of their salary to pensions and restrict certain pension increases and guarantees. The court reviewed whether the title substantially complied with statutory word limits and content requirements for the caption, question, and summary, and whether identical titles could be used for separate but identical measures. The court held that the certified title substantially complied because word limits reasonably prevented covering every subject and no unnecessary words were used, and it declined to address the identical-titles issue because the petitioner had not raised it with the Secretary of State during the required comment period. The court therefore certified the ballot title without modification.

electionsprocedure

In this criminal case, the defendant pleaded guilty to multiple counts of rape, sodomy, sexual abuse, and burglary committed against three different women on three separate dates in 1990. The trial court used the convictions from the first date to increase the defendant's criminal history score when calculating presumptive sentences under the state sentencing guidelines for the crimes committed on the later dates, then imposed three consecutive sentences totaling 98 months. The Court of Appeals reversed on the criminal history issue, but the Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court's sentences. The court held that convictions arising from separate criminal episodes may be counted in the criminal history score for sentencing on later episodes even when all convictions are entered in a single proceeding, following its prior decision in State v. Bucholz, and that the guidelines' 200 percent rule limiting consecutive sentences applies only within a single criminal episode.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Nielsen, the defendant was convicted of forgery after a trial court admitted an out-of-court statement by his unavailable accomplice, Shelly Rimer, who had confessed to police that she and the defendant had committed a burglary and forged stolen traveler's checks. The statement was offered under the hearsay exception in OEC 804(3)(c) for statements against penal interest. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Rimer's statement satisfied the requirements of the exception because it was made shortly after arrest without coercion or bargaining and was sufficiently reliable under the totality of the circumstances. The court also concluded that admission of the statement did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution or the Sixth Amendment, even though the penal-interest exception is not firmly rooted, because other indicia of reliability were present.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved negligence claims against the State of Oregon by victims of shootings committed by a convicted felon who escaped from a remote forest work camp by taking a state van whose keys had been left accessible. The prisoner, whose prior record involved only property crimes, traveled 50 miles and two days later shot the plaintiffs after burglarizing his mother's home to obtain a gun; the state had notified law enforcement of the escape but had no knowledge of the mother's location or any specific threat to the plaintiffs. The trial court granted summary judgment to the state on grounds that the harm was not legally foreseeable and no special relationship existed, the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, affirming summary judgment for the state. The court held that the established facts created no liability because the custodian's duty to the public regarding an escaped prisoner did not extend to these circumstances and no duty to warn arose.

torts & liabilitycriminal law

This case involved two defendants convicted of marijuana-related offenses after police executed a search warrant based on an officer's observations of green plants inside their home. The officer's affidavit described the plants as "consistent with" marijuana based on color and stem shape viewed from a distance with and without binoculars, noted the officer's training and prior successful identifications of marijuana, and included an anonymous tip plus high electric usage, but did not state that the plants were marijuana or that the officer believed them to be. The trial court denied the defendants' motion to suppress evidence from the search, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the affidavit failed to allege particularized facts sufficient to establish probable cause under ORS 133.545 and 133.555 because it lacked any affirmative identification or belief regarding the plants. The court reasoned that the statutory requirement for facts tending to show probable cause was not met by descriptions that were merely consistent with marijuana given the common nature of green houseplants.

criminal lawprocedure