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

This case involved an eminent domain action by the Oregon Department of Transportation to acquire portions of defendants' land in Union County for highway construction, including an initial 111-acre parcel in 1972 and an additional 20-acre parcel in 1974 due to landslides caused by the project. The defendants sought compensation for loss of calves resulting from disruption to their winter calving operations on the second parcel, as well as attorney fees. The court held that damages for loss of livestock as personal property are not compensable in a condemnation proceeding for real property, as such losses are indirect and not part of the property taken under Article I, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution. On attorney fees, the court ruled that the state's settlement offer must include interest from the date of possession to satisfy ORS 35.346(2)(a) and bar fees, leading to reinstatement of the trial court's award of attorney fees and costs to the defendants after adjusting the verdict comparison.

propertyprocedure

This case is an original mandamus proceeding brought by a non-attorney relator seeking to compel the Oregon Court of Appeals to allow him to present oral argument in four pending workers' compensation appeals. The court upheld a Court of Appeals internal rule providing that cases in which a litigant appears pro se will be submitted on briefs without oral argument by any party. The court held that the rule is authorized by statute granting the Court of Appeals power to adopt rules for the prompt dispatch of business, is consistent with statutes allowing parties to proceed in person, and does not violate state or federal constitutional guarantees of open courts, due process, equal protection, or free speech, because oral argument is not an essential component of appellate due process and the limitation is a reasonable measure to conserve judicial resources given the nature of appellate review.

procedurecivil rights

The case concerned whether a defendant charged with prostitution could assert an entrapment defense without first admitting that she committed the offense or any of its elements. The trial court refused to give an entrapment instruction on both evidentiary and consistency grounds, leading to a conviction that the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statutory definition of entrapment in ORS 161.275 contains no admission requirement and that sufficient evidence existed to submit the defense to the jury. The court reasoned that any apparent inconsistency between denying the act and claiming inducement is for the jury to resolve, as the defense ultimately depends on an antecedent finding that the act occurred.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Saga Enterprises suing Coldwell Banker and its agent Triplett for misrepresentation, concealment of facts, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from assistance in locating and developing a restaurant site in Portland, including arrangements with a developer (Iron Mountain) and seller (Conde) that involved contingencies for leases, zoning approvals, building permits, and earnest money. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found for the defendants. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence did not preponderate to show any misrepresentation or concealment regarding contract contingencies or forfeiture provisions, that Saga's representative Quistgard was aware of the time pressures and risks but proceeded without direct negotiations, local counsel, or firm assurances, and that the commission arrangement did not establish the claimed breach.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case concerned whether Oregon trial courts must comply with statutes requiring a presentence report and an on-the-record statement of reasons when imposing a felony sentence following a no-contest plea. The defendant received a one-year concurrent sentence without either requirement after waiving the report, and the Court of Appeals remanded for resentencing. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, holding that appellate review of sentence excessiveness under ORS 138.050 implicitly authorizes review of these procedural steps because they supply the factual basis and rationale needed for meaningful substantive review. The court concluded that the statutory language is mandatory and that the trial court's failure to state reasons on the record required remand, while clarifying that a full presentence report is generally required unless properly dispensed with.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute over the property tax valuation of an 18-hole golf course within a planned residential development, where the taxpayer argued the course had zero true cash value because its benefits had transferred to adjacent lots via easements and restrictions. The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the Tax Court's decree de novo and rejected the zero-valuation claim, finding that the Tualatin precedent did not apply because the course was not shown to be permanently unprofitable and retained economic potential. Relying solely on the Department of Revenue appraiser's income approach evidence (projecting revenue from rounds played, fees, and expenses), the court determined the course's value under ORS 308.205 and affirmed adjusted figures of $840,000 for 1974 and $950,000 for 1975. The decision emphasizes factual valuation methods over legal restrictions when market or income data indicate positive worth.

taxesproperty

In State v. Spada, the defendant was charged with speeding based on radar evidence and sought pretrial discovery of the radar device's repair and maintenance records, arguing that the prosecution's refusal violated due process under Brady v. Maryland. The trial court ordered production and dismissed the complaint when the state refused, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, holding that Oregon statutes, including provisions for subpoenas duces tecum and the Public Records Inspection Act, provided mechanisms for the defendant to obtain the records, meaning there was no suppression of evidence that would trigger a constitutional claim. The court emphasized that statutory remedies must be considered before reaching federal constitutional issues and noted that the defendant had not pursued those statutory avenues.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Scurlock, the case concerned whether a juvenile court retained exclusive jurisdiction over a defendant who committed an alleged assault before turning 18, but was not indicted until after his 18th birthday because the district attorney intentionally delayed seeking charges to avoid a juvenile remand hearing. The trial court dismissed the adult indictment, finding juvenile jurisdiction, but the Court of Appeals reversed; the Oregon Supreme Court modified that reversal. The court held that the circuit court must remand the matter to juvenile court for further proceedings under the remand statutes, reasoning that the legislature assigned the decision on whether to treat a 16- to 18-year-old as an adult to the juvenile court, not the prosecutor, and that intentional delay solely to bypass this process would undermine the statutory scheme. Although the defendant was over 18 when taken into custody, the court concluded that the case should proceed as if the district attorney had acted consistently with the juvenile code's policies.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether attorney fees in a forcible entry and detainer action under ORS 91.755 must be pleaded and proved during trial or can be awarded as part of costs after judgment. The plaintiff sought possession of a rented apartment, and after a jury verdict for the defendant, the trial court allowed attorney fees via a cost bill. The court held that the fees must be pleaded and proved at trial because the statute awards them "together with costs," distinguishing them from costs, consistent with prior interpretations. Therefore, the allowance of fees without pleading and proof was reversed.

procedureproperty

The case concerned whether the City of Eugene could be held liable for negligently issuing a taxicab license to Terminal Taxi Service despite its application showing only $10,000 in liability insurance, far below the $100,000 minimum required by city ordinance. Plaintiff Brennen, injured in a taxi accident, obtained a judgment against the company but could recover only a fraction due to insufficient assets and coverage, then sued the city alleging its licensing agent's breach of duty caused the shortfall. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal on demurrer and the Court of Appeals affirmance, holding that the complaint stated a viable negligence claim because ORS 30.265(1) imposes tort liability on public bodies equivalent to private employers, the agent's duty to verify insurance compliance was ministerial rather than discretionary, and the resulting inability to collect was a foreseeable consequence of the breach.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with first-degree theft who raised defenses of insanity and partial responsibility due to mental disease or defect affecting his intent. The trial court instructed the jury on insanity but refused a requested instruction on partial responsibility under ORS 161.300, resulting in a conviction that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Oregon Supreme Court clarified that the partial responsibility defense applies to theft prosecutions regardless of whether a lesser-included offense exists, as a successful defense could lead to acquittal if intent is not proven. However, the court held that a specific jury instruction on partial responsibility is not required, since general instructions on the state's burden to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt sufficiently address the evidence, rendering any refusal non-prejudicial. The conviction was therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with first and second degree rape who raised defenses of insanity and partial responsibility due to mental disease. After stipulating to the facts in the indictment, the trial court allowed evidence of the defendant's mental condition only for the insanity defense under ORS 161.295 and refused a jury instruction on partial responsibility under ORS 161.300. The jury convicted the defendant of first-degree rape, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that any exclusion of partial responsibility evidence was harmless because all relevant mental health evidence was admitted for the insanity claim, and the requested instruction was properly refused as the statute does not require it and the indictment alleged knowledge rather than intent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the validity of the State Land Board's rules requiring leases and rent payments for permanent structures on state-owned submerged and submersible lands beneath navigable waters, with exceptions for navigational uses and certain wharves. The court upheld the Board's authority to implement the leasing program, finding that the state holds title to the lands and the legislature has expressly authorized the Division of State Lands to lease them for revenue. It concluded that the program does not improperly impair riparian owners' rights beyond the statutory wharf privileges already recognized, and that the rental calculations and application to port districts were permissible under the governing statutes and constitutional provisions.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Hatley v. Stafford, a farm lessee sued the lessors for trespass after they entered the property, terminated the lease, and destroyed an immature wheat crop to develop a mobile home park. The written lease allowed the lessors to buy out the lessee at cost (up to $70 per acre) for that purpose, but the lessee sought to introduce evidence of an alleged oral agreement limiting the buyout right to 30-60 days after signing. The trial court admitted the parol evidence on the ground that the writing was only a partial integration of the parties' agreement, and the jury found for the lessee. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the parol evidence rule does not bar proof of additional terms when the parties did not intend the writing to be a complete integration; the judge may consider relevant evidence to decide that preliminary question before applying the rule.

propertyprocedure