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

In this criminal case, defendant pleaded guilty to murder and received a life sentence with 25-year minimum under ORS 163.115(3), but appealed arguing that the 1989 sentencing guidelines statutes impliedly repealed that provision. The court held that the guidelines did not repeal the 10- and 15-year minimum sentences in ORS 163.115(3)(b) and (c), which are determinate sentences that must be imposed if longer than the guidelines presumptive term under ORS 137.637, but did supersede the life imprisonment requirement in subsection (a) except as a departure. The core reasoning was that ORS 137.010(1) and related guidelines provisions allow statutes to specifically provide for sentences outside the matrix system, and the minimum terms qualify as such determinate sentences while the life term does not survive the guidelines' structure for post-prison supervision. The court affirmed the conviction, reversed the Court of Appeals on the minimum sentences, and remanded for a corrected judgment imposing the minimums plus lifetime post-prison supervision (subject to possible shortening).

criminal lawprocedure

Southern Pacific Transportation Co. appealed from a Tax Court ruling in a dispute with the Oregon Department of Revenue and several counties over the interest rate applicable to additional property taxes owed following settlement of a valuation challenge for tax years 1980-1991. The sole issue was whether a 1989 statutory amendment raising the interest rate to 16 percent applied to real property taxes that were unpaid as of July 1, 1989. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Court, holding that the higher rate applied to all such unpaid taxes. The court based its decision on the plain text and context of the 1989 law, particularly a grace-period provision that presupposed the new rate would apply to taxes already unpaid on the effective date unless paid by October 3, 1989.

taxespropertybusiness & regulatory

The consolidated cases involved multiple defendants prosecuted by the State of Oregon on charges arising from petition-gathering activities. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decisions in favor of the defendants by an equally divided court, with no majority opinion issued. Because the court split evenly, the lower court rulings stood without any stated reasoning from the Supreme Court on the underlying legal issues.

electionsfree speechcriminal law

This case involved a plaintiff injured in a car accident with a motorist whose liability insurer became insolvent. The plaintiff recovered an arbitration award under his own uninsured motorist coverage that fell short of the $100,000 policy limits, then pursued a negligence action against the other driver and employer. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his remedies under ORS 734.650(1) before proceeding with a claim implicating the Oregon Insurance Guaranty Association. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court, concluding that the dispositive exhaustion issues were indistinguishable from those resolved in the companion case Carrier v. Hicks.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit by plaintiff Timothy Carrier against tavern owners Wilbur and Fay Hicks for allegedly serving alcohol to an intoxicated driver, Morgan, whose vehicle struck plaintiff's car. After Morgan's insurer paid a partial settlement and defendants' liability insurer became insolvent, the Oregon Insurance Guaranty Association defended the tavern owners. Plaintiff received a $100,000 arbitration award under his own uninsured motorist policy with Farmers Insurance, which was below the policy limits, and then pursued his claim against the defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, which the Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed, reversing the Court of Appeals. The court held that ORS 734.640(1) required plaintiff to exhaust the limits of all available insurance coverage before seeking recovery from OIGA or the tortfeasors, and that the arbitration award did not satisfy this requirement or preclude further proceedings only as between the insurer and insured.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Trenary, a driver suspected of DUII was asked to perform field sobriety tests but was not informed of the statutory consequences of refusing, as required by ORS 813.135; he took the tests anyway, leading to his conviction after the trial court denied his motion to suppress the results. The Oregon Supreme Court addressed whether the officer's failure to provide the required information mandated exclusion of the test evidence. The court held that suppression was not required, because the statutes are silent on the remedy for noncompliance, no constitutional violation occurred, and suppression would not advance the statutes' purpose of addressing refusals, given that the driver had impliedly consented to the tests by operating a vehicle and ultimately submitted to them. The court affirmed the denial of suppression (while remanding on a separate issue regarding the right to counsel).

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a Portland city ordinance banning public exposure of genitalia, without any intent requirement, conflicted with a state statute defining public indecency as exposure done with the intent to arouse sexual desire, thereby violating the home rule provision of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer and dismissed the case, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that the ordinance prohibited conduct the legislature intended to permit. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding the ordinance valid and not in conflict with the statute. The core reasoning was that criminal statutes do not implicitly permit all unprohibited conduct, and cities may enact stricter regulations unless the state law expressly occupies the field or shows an intent to allow the conduct.

criminal law

This case is a civil administrative proceeding to suspend a driver's license after a breath test for driving under the influence of intoxicants. The petitioner argued he was denied a meaningful conversation with his lawyer because an officer stood nearby and allegedly interrupted during a phone call before the test, citing Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution. The court held that this provision applies only to criminal prosecutions and does not extend to civil license suspension hearings, so the remand to the Motor Vehicles Division is limited to whether the petitioner received a reasonable opportunity to communicate with counsel under the standard from Moore v. Motor Vehicles Division, without interference from the mandatory 15-minute pre-test observation period. The decision affirms the Court of Appeals on different grounds and remands for further factual findings on that limited issue.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether fees imposed by the Water Wonderland Improvement District (WWID), a nonprofit corporation organized under ORS chapter 554 to provide water services, qualify as taxes subject to the limits of Measure 5 in the Oregon Constitution. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Court's decision that WWID is not a "governmental unit" under Article XI, section 11b(2)(b). The court reasoned that 554 corporations are structured and operate similarly to private corporations, with voting rights akin to shareholders and other corporate features, despite some powers like issuing bonds or collecting assessments through county mechanisms. Therefore, the fees are not subject to the constitutional tax limits.

taxesproperty

This case concerned a defendant convicted of aggravated murder based on alternative theories involving robbery and concealment, where the conviction was reversed due to an erroneous jury instruction allowing non-unanimous agreement on the theories. On remand, the state pursued only one aggravating factor in a limited retrial, and the trial court instructed the jury that the state had already proved first-degree robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Oregon Supreme Court held that the limited retrial on remand was permissible because the prior remand order did not expressly require retrying all elements and precedents allow appellate courts to limit issues for retrial in such circumstances. However, the court further held that the trial court's jury instruction was erroneous.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Oregon Revised Statute 759.290, which banned the use of automatic dialing and announcing devices to solicit purchases of realty, goods, or services while exempting charitable and political calls, violated Article I, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution. Plaintiff, a chimney sweep operator who used such devices for commercial solicitation, sought a declaratory judgment that the statute infringed free speech rights. The trial court upheld the law, but the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that reversal. The court held that the statute was a content-based restriction on speech because it targeted the subject matter of commercial messages conveyed via recorded calls, did not fall within any historical exception to the constitutional guarantee, and was overbroad in prohibiting non-intrusive as well as intrusive communications.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a mandamus proceeding challenging an Oregon trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss an adoption petition filed by Oregon residents after the child's Washington-resident mother consented to the adoption following a Washington divorce decree granting her custody. The court held that Oregon's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act applies to adoption proceedings, as they result in custody determinations that divest natural parents of rights and transfer them to adoptive parents, but that the Act did not confer jurisdiction on the Oregon court under these facts. The core reasoning was that the child remained domiciled in Washington (following the custodial mother's domicile) when the petition was filed, making Washington the appropriate forum to avoid jurisdictional conflicts and promote the Act's goals of stability and uniformity across states, thus requiring dismissal of the Oregon proceeding.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over attorney fees in the probate of an estate where the sole beneficiary, Kidney Association of Oregon, objected to fees paid to the lawyer representing the personal representative, alleging a conflict of interest under disciplinary rules. The probate court found no violation and awarded reduced fees, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding a violation and denying all fees. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the fee issue, reinstating the probate court's award, reasoning that while disciplinary rules inform the reasonableness of fees, a violation does not automatically bar compensation, and courts have authority to assess fees based on factors like the nature and quality of services rendered.

procedureproperty

This case involved a dispute over a real estate development agreement in which plaintiffs purchased interests in land sale contracts and negotiated modifications with defendants, who were prior vendors. After the trial court directed a verdict against plaintiffs on their fraud claim, a jury awarded damages on their negligent misrepresentation claim, but the trial court granted a new trial due to an erroneous damages instruction. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' reinstatement of the verdict, holding that no duty to avoid negligent misrepresentation arose under the facts because the parties' interactions were governed by contract and did not involve the special relationship or pecuniary interest required for such a tort claim. The court remanded for consideration of the fraud claim, the implied covenant of good faith claim, and attorney fees.

propertytorts & liability