R. William Riggs

This case involves a ballot title review under ORS 250.085 for Initiative Petition 112 (2006), a proposed measure that would create an Oregon Kids Program to expand health insurance coverage for uninsured children under age 19, funded in part by graduated increases in taxes on tobacco product distributors and consumers. Petitioners challenged the Attorney General's certified ballot title, arguing deficiencies in the caption, result statements, and summary. The court found that the certified title did not substantially comply with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2) due to a clerical error in certification and other identified issues with the language, and therefore referred the ballot title back to the Attorney General for modification.

electionstaxeshealthcare

This tax case concerned the proper method for determining the assessable real market value of a low-income housing project subject to federal restrictions under the Section 515 program for ad valorem tax purposes. The Tax Court adopted a formula subtracting the value of the government's interest and restrictions (VGI) from the property's unrestricted value (VPWR) to arrive at the taxable interest (VTI), using the present value of lost market rents as a proxy for VGI due to the lack of a market for restricted properties. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Court's decision, holding that this methodology correctly accounted for the government-imposed limits on rents, operations, transfers, and financing when valuing the taxpayer's interest in the property for the tax years 1992-93 through 1994-95.

taxesproperty

In this criminal case, the state appealed a trial court order suppressing portions of two police interviews with defendant before he was notified that the interviews were being videotaped, along with related officer testimony, in a murder prosecution. The court held that ORS 41.910 required suppression of the prenotification segments of the videotapes because they constituted evidence of intercepted oral communications obtained without the required notice under ORS 165.540. However, it reversed the suppression of the officers' testimony describing defendant's statements, reasoning that such testimony did not qualify as evidence of the contents of an intercepted communication under the statute's terms. The decision turned on distinctions between the statutory definitions of 'conversation' and 'oral communication' and the scope of the suppression remedy.

criminal lawprocedure

In Day v. Advanced M & D Sales, Inc., the plaintiff, who worked for the defendant in dual roles as a salesperson and floor installer, was injured while assisting with a flooring demonstration and initially filed for and received workers’ compensation benefits under the defendant’s policy by describing his role as a salesperson. He later filed a lawsuit alleging common-law negligence and violations of the Employer Liability Law, claiming he was not a covered worker in his installation capacity at the time of the injury. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding that equitable and judicial estoppel barred the claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on equitable estoppel grounds, holding that acceptance of benefits prevented the plaintiff from denying coverage. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the elements of equitable estoppel were not satisfied on the record because the plaintiff’s actions did not induce detrimental reliance by the defendant or its insurer in a manner that would preclude the negligence action. The case was remanded for further proceedings without addressing judicial estoppel.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In Smoldt v. Henkels & McCoy, Inc., an employee sued his employer for unpaid wages under an individual contract setting a higher hourly rate than the applicable collective bargaining agreement (CBA), after the employer paid only the lower CBA rate upon the employee's quit. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer on grounds that the CBA preempted the claim under ORS 652.140(5) and section 301 of the NLRA, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the federal preemption ground. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that the CBA did not bar the claim because it did not affirmatively address wage payments on voluntary termination and the employee's statutory claim arose from an independent individual contract rather than rights under the CBA. The court reasoned that neither state law nor federal preemption under section 301 applied, as the claim was not substantially dependent on CBA interpretation and individual contracts may provide more favorable terms.

labor & employmentfederal power

The case consolidated multiple petitions challenging the validity of the Oregon Secretary of State's legislative reapportionment plan under Article IV, section 6 of the state constitution. The Oregon Supreme Court rejected broad constitutional attacks on the amendment process and the Governor's veto authority but granted the Fabiano Petitioners' challenge, voiding the plan and returning it for revision. The core reasoning centered on the plan's reliance on inaccurate census data for a federal prison population in one block, which caused unconstitutional population deviations in affected House and Senate districts. The court dismissed all other petitions.

electionsfederal power