Ted Kulongoski

This case involved plaintiffs suing a restaurant lounge and its owners after Gary Fulmer fell down stairs and was injured, alleging defendants continued serving him alcohol despite visible intoxication. The complaint asserted eight claims including negligence per se based on alcohol-service statutes, common-law negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium; the trial court dismissed the entire complaint for failure to state a claim and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Oregon Supreme Court held that the negligence per se claims were properly dismissed because precedent establishes that the cited statutes (ORS 471.410(1), ORS 471.412(1), and former ORS 472.310(3)) do not create a standard of care whose violation constitutes negligence per se. It further held that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to state claims for common-law negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium, reversing the dismissal of those counts and remanding for further proceedings.

torts & liability

This case involved five rental car companies operating from designated areas at the tax-exempt Portland International Airport under operating agreements with the Port of Portland. The Multnomah County Assessor assessed ad valorem taxes on the companies' use of the publicly owned property pursuant to ORS 307.110(1), which taxes such property when held under a lease or other interest less than fee simple by a taxable party. The Tax Court upheld the assessments, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agreements constituted leases because they included a property description, a defined term, and rental payments, and that the companies had sufficient control and exclusive possession of the principal character of the premises to create a taxable possessory interest despite limited shared access by others. The court relied on precedents such as Port of Coos Bay and Sproul to conclude that the inability to exclude all third parties did not negate the possessory interest. The assessments were also upheld as sufficiently identifying the taxed property.

taxesproperty

The case involved the Oregonian Publishing Company seeking to compel the Portland School District to release a school police investigation report on alleged misuse and theft of school property by employees, which the district withheld as exempt from public records disclosure under statutes protecting personnel files. The circuit court ordered release of the report, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds. The court reasoned that Oregon has a strong policy favoring access to public records and that the report prepared by school police was not the type of document the legislature intended to exempt as part of a teacher's personnel file under ORS 192.502(9) and ORS 342.850(8). The court did not reach the issue of waiver by the district.

free speechprocedure

In this original proceeding, petitioners challenged the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for proposed initiative 30, a measure that would amend the state constitution to increase teachers’ authority to remove disruptive students, require public school teacher pay and job security to be based on increases in student knowledge rather than seniority or postgraduate study, and establish related performance standards. The court reviewed the ballot title for substantial compliance with ORS 250.035 and addressed objections to the caption, result statements, and summary. It modified the caption to better reflect the initiative’s unique definition of “job performance” and its effects on job security, adjusted the result statements for clarity on regulatory changes, and upheld most of the summary while confirming it accurately described the major effects. The court then certified the revised ballot title to the Secretary of State.

electionslabor & employment

This case involves petitioners challenging the Attorney General's ballot title for a proposed initiative that would amend the Oregon Constitution to base public school teachers' pay and job security on student learning outcomes rather than seniority. The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the ballot title for substantial compliance with statutory requirements and found the caption and result statements misleading because they used the term 'job performance' without reflecting the initiative's narrow definition limited to student knowledge gains, and because they inaccurately described the role of seniority and qualifications in retention decisions. The court modified the caption to read 'AMENDS CONSTITUTION: STUDENT LEARNING DETERMINES TEACHER PAY; QUALIFICATIONS, NOT SENIORITY, DETERMINE RETENTION' and adjusted the result statements accordingly, while leaving the summary unchanged. The court certified the revised ballot title to the Secretary of State.

electionslabor & employment

This case involves challenges by two electors to the Attorney General's certified ballot title for a proposed initiative measure that would amend the Oregon Constitution to prohibit and dissolve regional governments, including the Portland metropolitan service district known as Metro, with certain exceptions. The petitioners argued that the caption, result statements, and summary failed to accurately or completely describe the measure's effects, such as its application to all regional governments rather than only Metro, the elimination of Metro's urban growth boundary, and the transfer of assets and debts. The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the ballot title for substantial compliance with ORS 250.035 and determined that modifications were needed to the summary to better reflect the measure's provisions on planning authority and exceptions. The court modified the ballot title accordingly and certified the revised version to the Secretary of State.

electionsprocedure

The case involved a dispute over whether Oregon's automobile personal injury protection (PIP) statutes covered medical expenses from a gunshot wound sustained by the insured during a carjacking, where the shooting occurred after both the insured and the assailant had exited the vehicle. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled against coverage, finding the injury resulted from an intervening intentional act rather than the use of the motor vehicle. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the PIP statute does not categorically exclude gunshot injuries and that coverage applied because the injury resulted from the use of the insured's car in the course of the carjacking. The court's reasoning focused on the plain meaning of the statutory text requiring only that the injury result from the use of a motor vehicle, without additional limitations to typical accidents or on-site shootings.

criminal lawgunsbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned when a civil action is deemed commenced for statute of limitations purposes if the plaintiff is an indigent prisoner who files a complaint alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and conversion. The plaintiff delivered the complaint and fee-deferral application to prison officials on April 11, 1994; the court received it on April 13; and the complaint was stamped filed on May 31 after the fee deferral was granted. The Oregon Supreme Court held that the action commences when the complaint is received by the court. The court reached this conclusion through statutory interpretation of ORS 12.020, focusing on the text and context indicating that filing occurs upon receipt by the court clerk or equivalent, rather than delivery to prison staff or later stamping.

proceduretorts & liability

This workers’ compensation case concerned whether an employee’s injuries from an on-site assault by a coworker, triggered by the claimant’s racially derogatory workplace comments, qualified as compensable. The Oregon Supreme Court held the injury compensable, reversing the Court of Appeals. The court applied the work-connection test under ORS 656.005(7)(a), finding the injury arose out of employment because it resulted from a risk to which the work environment exposed the claimant, and concluded the claimant was not an active participant in the assault.

labor & employment

The case involved petitioners challenging the Attorney General's certified ballot title for a proposed initiative measure that would amend the Oregon Constitution to prohibit using public resources to collect or assist in collecting political funds. The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed petitioners' objections to the caption, result statements, and summary of the ballot title. The court decided to certify the Attorney General's ballot title without modification. Its core reasoning was that the ballot title substantially complied with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2), as the measure's subject matter was the broad prohibition on public funds for political collections rather than being limited to payroll deductions.

electionsprocedure