George Van Hoomissen

Plaintiff employer sued defendant employee for breach of a noncompetition provision in their employment contract. The trial court found the noncompetition agreement void and unenforceable under ORS 653.295 because it was not entered into at the start of employment or with a bona fide advancement, dismissed the claim, and awarded defendant $25,000 in attorney fees under a provision in the contract and ORS 20.096(1). The Court of Appeals reversed the fee award, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The court reasoned that the attorney-fee clause was integrated into and dependent on the noncompetition provision, so once that provision was ruled void there was no remaining contractual basis for awarding fees to the prevailing party.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this product liability action, the plaintiff claimed that silicone from her ruptured breast implants had migrated through her body and caused neurological injuries, while defendants argued her symptoms resulted from fibromyalgia. The trial court excluded the causation opinion of plaintiff's expert neurologist after an in limine hearing on its scientific reliability, leading to a defense verdict. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the expert's differential diagnosis, based on clinical examinations and a pattern observed in other implant patients, satisfied the low relevance threshold and foundational requirements for admissibility of expert scientific testimony under state evidence rules.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The case concerned a challenge by the Executive Director of the Oregon State Bar to the Attorney General's certified ballot title for a proposed initiative that would amend the state constitution to add a 'None of the Above' option on judicial election ballots. The Supreme Court of Oregon reviewed the caption and result statements for substantial compliance with ORS 250.035 and concluded that they were deficient because they failed to adequately identify the measure's primary subject of creating the new voting option. The court therefore modified the caption to reference the 'None of the Above' choice and adjusted the result statements accordingly before certifying the revised ballot title. The decision rested on the requirement that a caption must reasonably convey the full scope of the proposed measure and that the Attorney General's version understated the central change to the judicial election process.

electionsprocedure

This case concerns whether an insured plaintiff must first arbitrate disputes over the denial or reduction of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under an Oregon automobile insurance policy before pursuing court claims alleging fraud, negligence, and breach of contract related to the insurer's use of medical review reports. The Oregon Supreme Court, answering certified questions from the federal district court, held that ORS 742.520(6) and ORS 742.522 require mandatory binding arbitration of disputes about the amount or denial of PIP benefits. The court reasoned that the statute applies to such coverage disputes regardless of allegations that the denial stemmed from fraudulent or negligent medical reviews, and that arbitration must precede litigation on those issues even if related tort or contract claims are also asserted. The provisions do not apply to the non-insurer defendants involved in the medical review process.

business & regulatoryprocedurecivil rights

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Jody N. Hayes, an employee of Fred Meyer, who was stabbed and injured by a stranger in the employer's parking lot after finishing her shift and shopping briefly in the store for about 15-20 minutes. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled the injury compensable under the parking lot exception to the going and coming rule, finding it arose out of and occurred in the course of employment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Oregon Supreme Court also affirmed, concluding that the brief post-shift shopping did not break the employment connection and that a causal link existed between the injury and employment-related risks in the parking lot. The court applied the statutory work-connection test, requiring both prongs to be satisfied to some degree based on time, place, circumstances, and causal relationship to employment.

labor & employment

This case consolidated challenges by public employee unions and individuals to Ballot Measure 8 (1994), which added Sections 10, 11, and 12 to Article IX of the Oregon Constitution, altering public employees' PERS benefits by ending employer pick-up of the six percent employee contribution, eliminating a guaranteed rate of return, and changing sick leave credits. The circuit courts granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, ruling that these provisions impaired existing PERS contracts. On appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court agreed, holding that Sections 10, 11, and 12 violate the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution because they substantially alter the terms of the plaintiffs' contractual rights under their collective bargaining agreements and employment customs with public employers. The court therefore declared those sections void.

labor & employmentfederal power

The case was a habeas corpus proceeding brought by an Oregon prison inmate alleging that the superintendent denied him medically necessary arch supports for a foot condition (Pes Cavus), claiming this violated his rights under Article I, section 16 of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court dismissed the petition as meritless after considering evidence of the prison's response, but the Court of Appeals reversed on procedural and substantive grounds. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the reversal but on different grounds, holding that the petition adequately alleged a claim requiring immediate judicial attention and that the state constitutional standard for prison medical care is whether inmates are afforded diagnosis and treatment reasonably available under the circumstances of confinement, while comparing it to the federal deliberate indifference standard from Estelle v. Gamble.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a dispute over an alleged oral contract between two merchants for the purchase of 88 truckloads of cedar shakes, where the buyer later accepted only 13 loads after prices dropped. Plaintiffs GPL sued defendant Louisiana-Pacific for breach of contract, and the defendant raised the UCC statute of frauds as a defense while plaintiffs invoked the merchant's exception based on written order confirmation forms they had sent. The trial court denied the defendant's motions to exclude the forms and for a directed verdict, the jury found for GPL, and both the Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the signed confirmation forms met the statutory requirements by evidencing the contract, specifying quantity, and being sent within a reasonable time without objection.

business & regulatory

In this case, defendant Jeffrey Ray Williams was convicted of two counts of aggravated murder committed in 1988 and sentenced to death; after the Oregon Supreme Court previously vacated the sentences and remanded for a new penalty phase, a jury again answered the statutory questions under ORS 163.150(1)(b) in a way that resulted in death sentences. The defendant raised assignments of error, primarily arguing that the trial court improperly barred defense counsel from informing the jury about the possibility of consecutive life sentences if life verdicts were returned, and that certain prosecutorial arguments and evidentiary rulings were improper. The court affirmed the death sentences, holding that the trial court correctly reserved sentencing decisions like consecutive versus concurrent terms for itself rather than allowing jury argument on the topic, that the challenged prosecutorial comments did not violate constitutional standards, and that other claims were either unpreserved or lacked merit under applicable precedents.

criminal law

This case was an original proceeding in the Oregon Supreme Court challenging the Attorney General's certified ballot title for a proposed initiative measure that would amend the state constitution to prohibit requiring public employees to join unions, pay dues or fees, or be subject to union security clauses, while also addressing union representation duties and political expenditures. The court reviewed the ballot title under the substantial compliance standard of ORS 250.035, as amended in 1995. It modified the Attorney General's version of the caption, result statements, and summary to more accurately and impartially describe the measure's effects on union obligations and employee rights. The decision focused on ensuring the title's components complied with statutory word limits, parallelism requirements, and impartiality rules without resembling prior titles.

electionslabor & employment

This case involved petitioners challenging the ballot title certified by Oregon's Attorney General for a proposed initiative measure that would amend the state constitution to limit property taxes and restrict replacement revenue sources without voter approval. The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the title under ORS 250.085(5) (1993) for substantial compliance with statutory requirements for captions, questions, and summaries. The court agreed with petitioners that the original title was underinclusive regarding the measure's shift of control over revenue expenditures from local governments to the legislature. It modified the question and summary accordingly while retaining core elements about tax limits and other restrictions, then certified the revised ballot title to the Secretary of State.

electionstaxesproperty

The case concerned whether an Oregon trial court had personal jurisdiction over a California attorney sued by an Oregon conservator for conversion, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims involving $40,000 held in a California trust account. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals affirmed in banc, and the Oregon Supreme Court also affirmed on different grounds. The court reasoned that the defendant's limited contacts with Oregon—such as unrelated real property ownership and telephone calls with the plaintiff's Oregon attorney—did not satisfy the requirements of ORCP 4 or constitutional due process minimum contacts, as the underlying conduct occurred entirely in California and was governed by California law. The court concluded that exercising jurisdiction would not be consistent with fair play and substantial justice.

procedure

This case involved a dispute over whether Windsor Insurance was obligated to pay underinsured motorist benefits to the parents of a son killed in a car accident. The son was a passenger in a vehicle whose driver had a $60,000 single-limit liability policy, from which the parents recovered only $32,000 after multiple claims; their own policy provided $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident underinsured motorist coverage. The trial court and Court of Appeals granted summary judgment to Windsor, finding that the per-person limits controlled and the other policy was not underinsured. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that under ORS 742.502(2)(a) the comparison must use the higher per-accident limits, making the driver's vehicle underinsured, and that the policy is reformed to provide coverage up to the $50,000 per-person limit less amounts recovered from the other insurer.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

Fisher Broadcasting, a Washington corporation operating television and radio stations in both Washington and Oregon, sought refunds of its 1983 and 1984 Oregon corporate excise taxes and Multnomah County business taxes after the Department of Revenue required it to use an apportionment method of income reporting rather than the segregated method it had used following a 1974 administrative ruling that treated it as a public utility. The Tax Court rejected the taxpayer's claims that issue preclusion barred the department from changing the method and that the apportionment method did not fairly reflect Oregon income, upholding the assessments. On de novo review, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed, concluding that issue preclusion applied because the prior determination that the segregated method was permissible was essential to the earlier ruling and that de novo review in tax proceedings does not preclude giving preclusive effect to such determinations.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a federal retiree seeking a refund of Oregon state income taxes paid on her retirement benefits for 1991, arguing that Oregon's tax laws discriminated against federal retirees compared to state retirees in violation of intergovernmental tax immunity principles. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, the Oregon legislature repealed exemptions for state public employee retirement benefits (PERS), making them taxable like federal benefits, while also providing some increases in PERS benefits. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Court's denial of the refund, reasoning that the 1991 changes resulted in equal tax treatment of federal and state retirement benefits without discrimination based on the source of the benefits, and that the benefit increases did not create unequal tax treatment.

taxesfederal power

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim by an employee who experienced a conversion reaction, a diagnosed mental disorder involving paralysis and other symptoms, after a coworker briefly grabbed and shook him from behind at a gas station in 1990. The claimant had a history of a 1976 on-the-job injury with similar pre-existing psychological elements. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the claim, holding that mental disorders arising from work events must be analyzed as occupational diseases under ORS 656.802 rather than as injuries under ORS 656.005(7). The court reasoned that the triggering event was a common workplace greeting inherent in every working situation, which failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for compensability of mental disorders under ORS 656.802(3)(b).

labor & employment

This case arose from a car accident in which plaintiff Davis was injured; after settling with the estate of the other driver (Holt), Davis sued defendants O'Brien, whose log truck was involved. The jury's special verdict attributed 96.5 percent of the fault to non-party Holt and 3.5 percent to O'Brien, and the trial court reduced the damages recoverable from O'Brien to 3.5 percent of the total before entering judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed on preservation grounds. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the comparative fault statutes (ORS 18.470-.485) and precedent in Mills v. Brown permit allocation of fault only among parties to the action, so the trial court erred by allowing the jury to apportion fault to a settled non-party and by reducing the judgment on that basis.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Hampton Tree Farms, a log supplier, and Erickson Hardwood Company (EHC), its customer, along with guarantors Jewett and Erickson. After EHC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Hampton continued supplying logs under a reorganization plan and security arrangements, but EHC later asserted counterclaims against Hampton for breach of contract and related issues arising from the supply relationship and a proposed mill sale. The trial court granted summary judgment to Hampton on the counterclaims, but the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the parties' agreements and conduct, precluding summary judgment as a matter of law under ORCP 47 C.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a worker with a preexisting sinus condition that became symptomatic from workplace exposure; after his workers' compensation claim was denied because the work was not the major cause of the condition, he sued his employer in circuit court for negligence seeking damages. The trial court and Court of Appeals granted summary judgment to the employer, holding that the workers' compensation exclusivity provision barred the suit even though the claim was not compensable. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, ruling that ORS 656.018 limits the exclusivity bar to compensable injuries as defined in the statute, so a civil action is not precluded when a condition falls outside that definition. The court based its decision on the plain text of the workers' compensation statutes and their historical scope, which has consistently tied exclusivity to accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of employment.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Long, the defendant appealed his conviction for first-degree sodomy under former ORS 163.405, arguing that the trial court improperly allowed the state to amend a material date in the indictment at trial and gave a related jury instruction. The indictment had listed incorrect dates for the offense due to a typographical error, but the state presented evidence and relied at trial on the correct date of April 22, 1984, which defense counsel had known about in advance; the defendant moved for acquittal citing the variance but was denied. The trial court found no prejudice to the defendant, ruled that time was not a material element of the crime in this context, and instructed the jury that the state needed to prove a single incident within the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals and Oregon Supreme Court both affirmed, holding that the change corrected a defect in form from a scrivener’s error without altering the grand jury’s substantive decision and that the evidence and instructions satisfied constitutional requirements for notice and jury unanimity.

criminal lawprocedure