Edwin J. Peterson

This case is a defamation action in which plaintiff Hickey sued defendant Settlemier, his neighbor, over statements allegedly made to a "20/20" television crew accusing him of mistreating animals and dealing in stolen pets. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant on the ground that a prior federal administrative law judge decision finding Animal Welfare Act violations preclusively established the truth of the statements. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Oregon Supreme Court considers whether issue preclusion applies to bar the claims and whether a reporter's videotaped account attributing statements to defendant is admissible over hearsay objection to prove publication.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned whether a bodily injury liability insurance policy's exclusion for injuries to employees arising out of their employment applied to claims of wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress brought by a former employee against her employer and its CEO. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding the exclusion applicable, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court, holding that the policy exclusion clearly barred coverage because the plaintiff's alleged injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved petitioners challenging the ballot title prepared by the Oregon Attorney General for a proposed initiative measure that would amend the state constitution to prohibit minority status based on homosexuality and related restrictions on public actions and spending. The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed whether the certified ballot title substantially complied with statutory requirements under ORS 250.035 for a caption identifying the subject, a question phrasing the chief purpose, and a concise impartial summary of major effects. After comparing the measure to a prior similar initiative and analyzing compliance, the court concluded that revisions were necessary and certified a modified ballot title.

electionscivil rights

This case concerned the validity of a life imprisonment sentence with a 25-year minimum term imposed on a defendant convicted of murder under ORS 163.115, where the trial court applied the sentencing guidelines and imposed the sentence as a departure based on aggravating factors. The Court of Appeals had remanded for resentencing, but the Oregon Supreme Court allowed review and reversed that decision. The court held that minimum sentences for murder under ORS 163.115(3) were not repealed by the 1989 sentencing guidelines statutes, following its prior decision in State v. Morgan. Defendant's separate challenge to the life imprisonment term as a departure sentence had not been preserved in the trial court and did not qualify as an error of law apparent on the face of the record, precluding appellate review under ORAP 5.45(2). The court therefore affirmed the trial court's judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Hancock, the defendant was charged with delivery of marijuana and objected at trial to the admission of a state crime laboratory report identifying the seized substance as marijuana, arguing that ORS 475.235 violated her confrontation rights under the state and federal constitutions by allowing the report as prima facie evidence without requiring the criminalist's live testimony. The trial court admitted the report, the jury convicted her, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Oregon Supreme Court held that the statute does not violate either confrontation clause, reasoning that the report bears sufficient indicia of reliability as a routine laboratory analysis, the defendant had the statutory right to subpoena the criminalist at no cost, and the state had adequately established the chain of custody linking the report to the evidence. The court affirmed the conviction after first addressing a subconstitutional chain-of-custody issue.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a former Oregon Department of Transportation employee charged with theft crimes stemming from his employment. After receiving notice of potential termination, the employee testified at a pre-termination hearing and later moved to dismiss some criminal charges, arguing that his testimony was compelled under Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth Amendment, entitling him to transactional immunity. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed two charges, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, holding that the employee's testimony was not compelled because state regulations explicitly provided that failure to appear or offer testimony at the hearing constituted neither an admission nor a denial of the charges and did not result in automatic job forfeiture.

criminal lawlabor & employment