Gordon Sloan

This case involved pear orchard owners suing an irrigation district for damage from water seeping out of the defendant's canals and raising the water table on their land. The plaintiffs asserted claims for strict liability, intentional trespass, and negligence, but the trial court instructed the jury only on negligence, resulting in a defense verdict. On appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the jury should have received a trespass instruction because the defendant maintained the canals with knowledge that water was seeping onto the plaintiffs' property, which constitutes an intentional invasion under traditional trespass principles. The court rejected the strict-liability theory, finding that irrigating land in a dry region is not an abnormally dangerous activity under the Rylands v. Fletcher rule as applied in Oregon. It reversed and remanded for a new trial limited to the trespass and negligence theories.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved the State Forester and a fire-fighting district seeking to recover costs from suppressing the Oxbow forest fire, which they alleged was started by the defendant's negligent operation of a road roller that emitted sparks. After state investigators examined and tested the roller without the defendant's consent while the fire was ongoing, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained from those inspections on grounds that they violated the Fourth Amendment and the Oregon Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, treating the exclusionary rule as applicable in this civil cost-recovery action. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the exclusionary rule does not extend to this type of civil proceeding brought by the state to recover fire-suppression expenses, even assuming the inspections were improper, and remanded the case for further proceedings including on the defendant's equitable defense.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment to establish that a 60-foot strip of land shown as Broadway Street on an unrecorded 1909 plat had become a public street through implied dedication. The trial court ruled for the defendants, who held record title to the entire strip, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the clear and unequivocal intent required for an implied dedication because the plat was never approved or recorded, all relevant conveyances used metes-and-bounds descriptions without reference to the plat, and there was no evidence that purchasers relied on the plat or that the strip was ever developed or used as a street. The court noted that the strip remained in weeds or garden use and that the failure to assess it for taxes did not establish dedication.

property

This case concerned a dispute between two insurers over prorata contribution toward a judgment entered against a highway contractor after a truck accident on a state construction project. The plaintiff's policy covered the contractor directly, while the defendant's policy covered the Oregon State Highway Commission and its agents or employees; the plaintiff contended the contractor qualified as an insured under the defendant's policy and sought contribution after satisfying the judgment. The trial court ordered prorata contribution, and the appellate court affirmed. Although the court indicated the contractor was likely an independent contractor rather than an agent or employee, it held that the defendant had waived any defense based on untimely notice by denying coverage, thereby requiring contribution under the policies' other-insurance clauses.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a wrongful death claim against Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital filed on May 6, 1969, after the plaintiff's decedent died on January 11, 1967. The dispute centered on whether a 1967 amendment to Oregon's wrongful death statute, which extended the limitations period from two to three years, applied to the action. The trial court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the complaint under the prior two-year limit. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, ruling that statutes enlarging a limitations period apply to existing causes of action that had not yet been barred, as such amendments are not retroactive and do not impair vested rights.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved grocery sellers suing their longtime customers to recover the unpaid balance of $4,449.37 on a charge account for purchases made from 1951 to 1963, with the suit filed in 1969. The trial court applied the six-year statute of limitations to limit recovery to only recent charges, but the appellate court modified the judgment to award the full amount. The court held that the account did not qualify as a mutual open and current account under ORS 12.090 due to the absence of reciprocal demands. It further reasoned that the parties' 1959 agreement changed the credit terms to an indefinite period, so the limitations period began running only from the date of the last purchase rather than from each individual item.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff insured under an automobile policy that covered two vehicles and included uninsured motorist coverage of $5,000 for each, with two premiums paid. The plaintiff was struck and injured by an uninsured motorist while walking across the street as a pedestrian and sought to recover a total of $10,000 by stacking the coverage limits. The trial court ruled that recovery was limited to $5,000, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that its prior decision in Castle v. United Pacific Ins. Group controlled, holding that the insured is entitled to only the single $5,000 limit regardless of the number of vehicles covered under the policy, even when the plaintiff was not occupying either insured vehicle at the time of the injury.

torts & liability

This case involved property owners challenging special sewer assessments levied by the City of Eugene on their land, which was part of a larger annexation and sewer project; the owners had granted an easement for one sewer line but contested the assessments for that line, arguing the city charter limited assessments to property within 160 feet of a street and that their property received no benefit. The trial court voided the assessments, but the Oregon Supreme Court reversed, reinstating them. The court interpreted the charter to permit assessments for property within 160 feet of any sewer line, not just streets, and held that the city council's determination of benefits was conclusive absent proof it was palpably arbitrary. It also found the initiating ordinance complied with charter requirements for specifying that benefited property would bear the costs, and that other objections like lack of benefit or inequity in granting the easement were insufficient for judicial intervention.

property

This case involved two osteopaths who sued their malpractice insurer for a declaratory judgment after the insurer refused to defend them in a malpractice suit brought by a former patient, on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to provide timely notice of the potential claim as required by their policies. The trial court found that one of the doctors had learned of facts indicating a possible claim two years earlier but did not notify the insurer until the lawsuit was filed, and that this knowledge was attributable to the other doctor as well. The court held that the failure to give notice relieved the insurer of both its duty to defend and any obligation to indemnify, and it affirmed the judgment for the insurer. The decision rested on the policy's notice requirement as a condition precedent, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's findings on awareness and imputed knowledge, and prior precedent that lack of notice excuses the duty to defend.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a jury verdict for the plaintiff who was injured when his vehicle collided with a truck and trailers on a curve of State Highway 140; the defendants appealed, claiming errors in the trial court's evidentiary rulings. The dispute centered on conflicting evidence about which vehicle was on the wrong side of the road, including measurements, expert opinions, and a proposed model exhibit to demonstrate the accident reconstruction. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial judge properly exercised discretion in qualifying witnesses and admitting or excluding evidence, that the model would have been confusing, and that other claimed errors regarding testimony and jury instructions lacked merit.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the State of Oregon, through its Director of the Division of State Lands, seeking a court order to compel a county treasurer to turn over unclaimed school bond redemption funds held since 1946 as abandoned property under the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act. The trial court sustained a demurrer against the state's petition, but the Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the funds must be delivered to the state. The court reasoned that ORS 98.336 specifically governs intangible personal property held by public officers and presumes abandonment after seven years unclaimed, without requiring a prior demand for payment; this statute is not in conflict with the bond redemption provisions of ORS 328.260(2), does not impair any contract rights, and is distinguishable from cases interpreting the Act's catch-all provision that impose a demand requirement. The court directed issuance of the peremptory writ.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the scope of an easement on Perry Lane in Eugene, where plaintiff College Inns acquired property abutting the lane and later built a dormitory that extended onto additional adjacent land. Heavy vehicles serving the dormitory used the easement to reach the non-appurtenant property, prompting defendant Cully to block access. The trial court denied plaintiff's request for an injunction against the interference, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling. The decision rested on the established principle that an easement appurtenant to one parcel cannot be used to access or benefit adjacent land beyond the dominant tenement.

property

In State v. Brewton, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder under ORS 163.101(1) for killing a grocery store owner during an attempted armed robbery in Multnomah County and received a life sentence; he appealed pro se, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence linking him to the robbery attempt as an accomplice or co-conspirator, as well as the admission of certain evidence including a dying declaration and his own statements. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the state's evidence—including witness accounts placing the defendant with the deceased co-perpetrator shortly before the crime, near the scene, and with gunshot wounds—supported reasonable inferences of his participation that were properly submitted to the jury. The court further reasoned that evidentiary rulings on the dying declaration, the defendant's admission, and other items were either admissible or non-prejudicial, and that the overall trial preserved the defendant's rights without reversible error.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether a state court judgment for unpaid wages, obtained by the Oregon Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor after assignment of the claim from an employee, could be discharged in the employer's bankruptcy. The trial court had granted the discharge under ORS 18.420 based on the bankruptcy order, but the state appealed. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the judgment remained enforceable because the commissioner was a known creditor who was neither scheduled in the bankruptcy filing nor given notice or actual knowledge of the proceedings. Under the Bankruptcy Act, a provable debt is not discharged if the creditor lacks timely notice unless properly scheduled. The court rejected arguments that notice to the original employee sufficed or that the commissioner was merely an agent.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a defendant's 1958 post-conviction motion to vacate his 1949 conviction and sentence, alleging that court records falsely documented his presence, waiver of indictment, and guilty plea on September 8, 1949, when he was actually held incommunicado without counsel. The trial court declined jurisdiction, ruling that habeas corpus provided the exclusive remedy. The Oregon Supreme Court initially reversed, holding that a motion to correct the record was available to address alleged violations of constitutional rights that contradicted the judicial record, but on rehearing it dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction over orders granting or denying such motions, as established in State v. Endsley.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant serving a 25-year sentence after pleading guilty to kidnapping who filed a motion in the nature of coram nobis to challenge the judgment based on alleged false statements and an incomplete criminal record in the district attorney's presentence statement. The trial court sustained the state's demurrer and declined to assert jurisdiction over the motion. On appeal, the court treated the order as a dismissal for review purposes and examined the record in light of prior decisions such as State v. Huffman, concluding that the defendant's claims did not involve new facts unknown at the time of judgment or any constitutional issues. The court held that the trial court properly refused to consider the motion on its merits.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a real property sales contract where the plaintiff vendor sought strict foreclosure after the defendant vendee defaulted. The circuit court denied the defendant's motion to set aside a default decree entered after the defendant filed a late answer but before the default order was filed with the clerk. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that under ORS 3.070 and relevant precedents, the default was ineffective until filing on April 14, 1955, and the defendant's March 30 answer constituted a timely appearance that prevented entry of default. The court emphasized that proceedings remain open until default is actually entered and that motions to vacate should favor allowing litigants their day in court. It also noted the trial court's discretion in strict foreclosure to allow reasonable redemption time.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a general contractor suing the surety on a subcontractor's performance bond to recover amounts paid in satisfaction of a judgment for the subcontractor's unpaid material bills. The trial court ruled for the defendant surety, but the appellate court reversed, holding the surety liable under the bond. The court reasoned that the performance bond obligated the surety to ensure the subcontractor fulfilled its duties, including payment for materials, and that the contractor's payments to the subcontractor followed the contract terms without releasing the surety.

business & regulatoryprocedure