Eads v. Borman
Oregon Supreme Court · 2012-04-26 · cited 40×
In this case, plaintiff David Eads sued Willamette Spine Center, LLC (a landlord leasing office space to medical providers) along with a surgeon and others after the surgeon negligently performed spinal surgery, causing permanent injuries. Plaintiff sought to hold the LLC vicariously liable on an apparent agency theory, based on the building signage and other representations suggesting the surgeon was part of a group medical entity affiliated with the LLC. The trial court granted summary judgment to the LLC, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed as well. The court held that vicarious liability on an apparent agency theory requires the injured party to have reasonably believed, based on the putative principal's own conduct or representations, that the medical professional was the principal's employee or subject to its control in providing the services. The record was insufficient to support such a finding here.
torts & liabilityhealthcare
Rasmussen v. Kroger
Oregon Supreme Court · 2011-10-06 · cited 6×
This case involved petitioners challenging the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 15 (2012), which would phase out Oregon's estate, inheritance, and certain intra-family property transfer taxes. The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed whether the ballot title substantially complied with ORS 250.035(2) requirements for captions and yes/no vote result statements. The court held that the title failed to accurately describe the measure's subject matter and effects, as it did not clearly indicate that current law taxes only estates valued at $1 million or more and that a no vote would retain that threshold. The court referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification of the caption and result statements to better reflect the scope of the proposed changes and existing tax scheme, while also noting a need to update the summary due to recent legislation.
taxeselections
State v. Lopez-Minjarez
Oregon Supreme Court · 2011-08-25 · cited 48×
This case involved charges against defendant Petronilo Lopez-Minjarez for crimes including first-degree burglary, second-degree assault, first-degree kidnapping, felony murder, and aggravated murder, arising from the abduction and killing of a teenager whose father was having an affair with the defendant's mother. The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed whether the trial court erred in giving Uniform Criminal Jury Instruction 1052 on aiding and abetting, which states that a defendant can be held liable for any crime that is a natural and probable consequence of a crime the defendant aided. The court held that the instruction misstates Oregon law on accomplice liability and that the error was prejudicial with respect to the assault, felony murder, and aggravated murder convictions because the jury could have convicted based on an incorrect theory that the defendant was responsible for his father's independent actions. However, the error did not prejudice the burglary and kidnapping convictions. Accordingly, the court reversed those three sets of convictions, affirmed the others, and remanded for further proceedings.
criminal lawprocedure
McDowell v. Employment Department
Oregon Supreme Court · 2010-08-05 · cited 29×
In this unemployment compensation case, a probationary teacher was placed on administrative leave after showing a film clip with profanity to his class without required preapproval, then resigned after being advised he would be recommended for discharge and that an appeal to the school board would likely fail. The Employment Department initially denied benefits on misconduct grounds, but the Employment Appeals Board found no misconduct yet determined the separation was a voluntary quit without good cause, denying benefits; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, concluding the claimant voluntarily left work with good cause because a reasonable person facing imminent discharge and limited practical alternatives, including the union advice and statutory hearing rights that offered little realistic prospect of success, would have resigned rather than await discharge.
labor & employment
State v. Lennon
Oregon Supreme Court · 2010-04-08 · cited 11×
This case involved a defendant convicted by jury of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine, after which the trial court imposed an upward departure sentence of 80 months based on its own findings regarding the defendant's extensive criminal history and the failure of prior sanctions to deter him, rather than submitting those facts to a jury. The Court of Appeals twice held that this was plain error under Blakely and Apprendi and exercised its discretion to remand for resentencing. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that even assuming plain error occurred, the Court of Appeals should not have corrected it because the record showed no legitimate debate that the departure factors were met, making any new jury proceeding unnecessary. The court affirmed the original sentence, noting that other issues raised were not preserved.
criminal lawprocedure
McCollum v. KMART CORP.
Oregon Supreme Court · 2010-02-19 · cited 9×
This case arose from a personal injury lawsuit in which a jury returned a verdict for defendant Kmart, and the trial court later entered judgment in its favor. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, and the trial court signed an order granting the motion along with a letter opinion, but the order was not entered in the court register until 59 days after judgment. The Court of Appeals initially addressed timeliness and then reversed the new-trial order on the merits, leading to plaintiff's petition for review. The Oregon Supreme Court held that ORCP 64 F(1) requires a motion for new trial to be heard and determined within 55 days of judgment, that the letter opinion did not qualify as an effective order because it was not entered in the register as such, and that the motion was therefore deemed denied by operation of law; accordingly, the court vacated the Court of Appeals decision, vacated the new-trial order, and remanded with instructions to reinstate the judgment for defendant.
proceduretorts & liability