Edward H. Howell

This case was an action by a bank and its subsidiary against a firm of certified public accountants for damages arising from alleged misrepresentation and nondisclosure. The accountants had performed bookkeeping and accounting services for a debtor company and, while aware that the company's president was diverting funds, continued to present lists of checks to the bank for approval without revealing the diversions, leading to over $100,000 in losses. The trial court entered judgment for the defendants after finding that intent to defraud had not been proven by clear and convincing evidence, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for judgment in the plaintiff's favor. On review, the Oregon Supreme Court examined whether the pleaded and found facts entitled the plaintiff to recover, analyzing liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 551 and 550 for failure to disclose facts that the defendants knew would induce reliance.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerned whether an irrevocable license allowing neighbors to use and maintain a spring on a parcel of land constituted a breach of the grantor's covenant against encumbrances in a warranty deed conveying the property. The plaintiffs purchased the land from the defendant and later faced a lawsuit from the neighbors confirming their license rights; the plaintiffs then sought damages from the defendant for breach of warranty. The trial court instructed the jury that an open, notorious, and visible physical encumbrance does not breach the covenant, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Oregon Supreme Court upheld that result, reasoning that such visible conditions known to the buyer do not diminish the land's value in a manner that triggers liability under the deed's warranty. The court also addressed related issues of damages and the scope of encumbrances under Oregon law.

property

The case involved consolidated challenges to a City of Eugene charter amendment and related ordinances that created a Downtown Development District, authorized taxes on real property and businesses within the district to fund free public parking and economic revitalization, and imposed parking restrictions on district employees, residents, and guests. Plaintiffs, including property owners and a business, sought declaratory relief and defended against tax collection suits, arguing that the measures exceeded municipal authority, violated state and federal equal protection guarantees, and breached the uniformity of taxation clause in the Oregon Constitution by taxing only district properties and businesses while exempting similar ones elsewhere in the city. The trial court upheld the charter amendment and ordinances in full; the Court of Appeals affirmed on most issues but held that the tax court had exclusive jurisdiction over ad valorem property tax challenges. The Oregon Supreme Court examined jurisdiction under ORS 305.410 and analyzed the uniformity requirements of Article I, sections 20 and 32, clarifying that those provisions do not mandate identical taxation throughout the entire city but permit differential treatment within a defined district.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case concerned ownership of stockpiled gravel on land in Jackson County, Oregon. The County had entered an agreement with the original landowner granting a profit à prendre to extract and stockpile rock, with the right to remove stockpiled material expiring on January 1, 1976. After the land was conveyed through successive owners to the Comptons, they denied the County access to remove the gravel post-expiration. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants; the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the profit terminated with the contractual deadline, leaving the gravel as part of the real property belonging to the current owners. The court reasoned that the severed material left on the land after the profit expired became the property of the landowner, consistent with precedent on time-limited extraction rights.

property

The case concerned whether a defendant charged with kidnapping and extortion had voluntarily waived his Miranda right to have an attorney present during custodial interrogation. After the defendant repeatedly requested counsel, police questioned him for hours on April 11 and again on April 12, presenting evidence, discussing penalties and cooperation benefits, and suggesting that an attorney would advise against talking. The trial court suppressed the first day's statements but admitted the matchbook evidence and the April 12 statements, and the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding the waiver involuntary because the officers' persuasion tactics created the impression that counsel would be useless and substituted for independent legal advice. The court therefore ruled that the April 12 statements must be suppressed and remanded the case.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned whether police officers could lawfully enter a private home to execute an arrest warrant for a suspect without first obtaining a separate search warrant. Officers approached the defendant's residence with an arrest warrant for her sister, briefly detained the defendant under a mistaken identity, then re-entered without a search warrant and located the sister hiding in the attic; the defendant was subsequently convicted of hindering prosecution. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence of the sister's presence, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on a statute allowing entry based on probable cause. The Supreme Court examined Oregon statutes, concluding they permit but do not mandate a search warrant for arrest entries, and turned to analysis under article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment.

criminal lawprocedure