Fundamentals of Oregon Civil Trial Procedure
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
1/13/18 Council on Court Procedures Meeting Minutes I
MINUTES OF MEETING COUNCIL ON COURT PROCEDURES Saturday, January 13, 2018, 9:30 a.m. Oregon State Bar, 16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd., Tigard, Oregon ATTENDANCE Members Present: Members Absent: Kelly L. Andersen* Hon. D. Charles Bailey, Jr. Jay Beattie Hon. Lynn R. Nakamoto Troy S. Bundy Margurite Weeks Hon. R. Curtis Conover Kenneth C. Crowley Guests: Travis Eiva Jennifer Gates* Matt Shields, Oregon State Bar Hon. Timothy C. Gerking* Hon. Norman R. Hill Council Staff: Meredith Holley Robert Keating Shari C. Nilsson, Executive Assistant Hon. David E. Leith Mark A. Peterson, Executive Director Hon. Susie L. Norby Shenoa L. Payne Hon. Leslie Roberts Sharon A. Rudnick Derek D. Snelling Hon. Douglas L. Tookey* Hon. John A. Wolf Deanna L. Wray *Appeared by teleconference ORCP/Topics ORCP Amendments ORCP/Topics to be ORCP/Topics Discussed & Not Acted Upon Moved to Publication Reexamined Next Discussed this Meeting this Biennium Docket this Biennium Biennium Fictitious Names Probate/Protective Proceedings ORCP 22 ORCP 23 ORCP 9 ORCP 43 ORCP 27 ORCP 21 ORCP 34 ORCP 25 ORCP 55 ORCP 32 ORCP 79 ORCP 45 ORCP 47 ORCP 68 ORCP 71 ORCP 79 1 - 1/13/18 Council on Court Procedures Meeting Minutes I. Call to Order Mr. Keating called the meeting to order at 9:31 a.m. II. Administrative Matters A. Approval of December 9, 2017, Minutes Mr. Keating asked whether any Council members had comments or concerns about the draft December 9, 2017, minutes (Appendix A). Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve those minutes. Judge Roberts made a motion to approve the December 9, 2017, minutes. -
INSURANCE COVERAGE Alert!
INSURANCE COVERAGE Alert! News Concerning Recent Insurance Coverage Issues January 29, 2008 www.cozen.com OREGON SUPREME COURT RULES TORT REFORM PRINCIPAL OFFICE: CAP AS APPLIED TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PHILADELPHIA NEW YORK MIDTOWN IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL (215) 665-2000 (212) 509-9400 (800) 523-2900 (800) 437-7040 ATLANTA NEWARK By: William F. Knowles and Joshua M. Rosen (404) 572-2000 (973) 286-1200 [email protected] & [email protected] (800) 890-1393 (888) 200-9521 CHARLOTTE SANTA FE (704) 376-3400 (505) 820-3346 The Oregon Supreme Court recently held that a plaintiff could pursue liability claims (800) 762-3575 (866) 231-0144 against individual public employees of public entities. The Court further stated that the damages cap in the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA) violated the Remedy Clause CHERRY HILL SAN DIEGO (856) 910-5000 (619) 234-1700 of the Oregon Constitution. Jordaan Michael Clarke v. Oregon Health Sciences (800) 989-0499 (800) 782-3366 University, No. SC S053868, (Ore. Sup., December 28, 2007). CHICAGO SAN FRANCISCO (312) 382-3100 (415) 617-6100 In February 1998, Jordaan Michael Clarke (Clarke) was born at Oregon Health & (877) 992-6036 (800) 818-0165 Science University (OHSU) with a congenital heart defect. In May 1998, Clarke returned to OHSU for surgical repair of his heart defect. After a successful surgery, DALLAS SEATTLE (214) 462-3000 (206) 340-1000 Clarke was placed in a surgical intensive care unit, where he suffered permanent brain (800) 448-1207 (800) 423-1950 damage from oxygen deprivation. DENVER TORONTO (720) 479-3900 (416) 361-3200 In 2001, Clarke sued OHSU and the medical staff personnel who treated Clarke for (877) 467-0305 (888) 727-9948 more than $17 million to pay for his lifetime care, loss and future wages and non-economic damages. -
Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT Media Release COPIES: Contact: Copies of the slip opinions may be obtained from the Appellate Records Section, (503) 986-5555 Stephen P. Armitage The full text of these opinions can be found at www.courts.oregon.gov/publications Staff Attorney (503) 986-7023 Case decided August 6, 2020. Jennifer James, et al. v. State of Oregon, et al., (SC S066933) On petition for review under Oregon Laws 2019, chapter 355, section 65. Petitioners' requests for relief challenging Oregon Laws 2019, chapter 355, sections 1-19 and 39-40, are denied. Today, the Oregon Supreme Court denied claims brought by petitioners challenging two amendments to the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) enacted by the legislature in SB 1049 (Oregon Laws 2019, chapter 355). The first challenged amendment redirects a member's PERS contributions from the member's individual account program -- the defined-contribution component of the member's retirement plan - - to a newly created employee pension stability account, used to help fund the defined- benefit component of the member's retirement plan. The second challenged amendment imposes a cap on the salary used to calculate a member's benefits. Petitioners primarily argued that the redirection and salary-cap provisions in SB 1049 unconstitutionally impaired their employment contracts in violation of the state Contract Clause, Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution. In the alternative, petitioners argued that the amendments violated the federal Contract Clause, Article I, section 10, clause 1, of the United States Constitution, breached their contracts, and constituted an unconstitutional taking of their property without just compensation in violation of Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. -
Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States
Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States Composition of the Supreme Court Tuesday, July 20, 2021 Written Statement of Marin K. Levy Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law Co-Chair Bauer, Co-Chair Rodriguez, and distinguished members of the Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the subject of Supreme Court expansion and composition. By way of background, I am a Professor of Law at the Duke University School of Law and a faculty advisor to the Bolch Judicial Institute. My research and teaching over the past twelve years have focused on judicial administration and appellate courts. It is a distinct honor and privilege to speak with you on these matters. Court expansion and other changes to the Court’s composition implicate fundamental questions about the role and operation of our nation’s highest court. These include whether expanding the Court would harm the institution’s legitimacy, whether expansion would prompt a series of expansions in the future, whether an expanded Court could function well as a single decision-making body, and whether expansion would contradict existing constitutional norms and conventions. Even if the answers to these questions were known, there is a larger background question to be answered—namely how such considerations should be weighted in assessing any proposal to change the Court’s structure. It is no easy task that the Commission has been given, and I hope that the legal community and public at large is cognizant of this. In contrast to the subject of the panel, my own testimony will be fairly circumscribed. -
Oregon Supreme Court Lays Down the Law on the Product Liability Statute of Limitations by Michael “Sam” Sandmire, Partner, Litigation Group and Sara L
Oregon Supreme Court Lays Down the Law on the Product Liability Statute of Limitations By Michael “Sam” Sandmire, Partner, Litigation Group and Sara L. Tait, Law Clerk, Litigation Group October 2002 In a little over a year, the Oregon Supreme Court has issued a trilogy of major interpretations of Oregon’s product liability statutes: Gladhart v. Oregon Vineyard Supply Co., 332 Or 226, 26 P3d 817 (2001); Kambury v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 334 Or 367 (2002); and Griffith v. Blatt, 334 Or 456 (2002). All three of the decisions have focused on statutory construction, and the results demonstrate the reluctance of Oregon’s highest court to insert common law precepts into the product liability statutory scheme. The cases further spotlight the continuing struggle to identify the contours of Oregon’s product liability law, which arguably encompasses far more than the doctrine of strict liability. In Gladhart, the Court interpreted ORS 30.905(2), the “product liability” statute of limitations. 332 Or at 229. ORS 30.905(2) mandates that a product liability action “shall be commenced not later than two years after the date on which the death, injury, or damage complained of occurs.” The Court rejected the application of the “discovery rule” to this statute, noting that “[a] discovery rule cannot be assumed, but must be found in the statute of limitations itself.” Id. at 230. In the absence of explicit language that the statute runs upon “discovery” or “accrual,” the Court concluded that “[t]he words ‘death, injury, or damage’ [as] used in ORS 30.905(2) refer to events, not to abstractions or ideas. -
Show Me the Money 1 Last Winter, Tucker and Ian Started a Lawn-Mowing and Snow-Shoveling Watch the Bottom Line Service
LAPLeadership, Attitude, Performance...making learning pay! Financial Analysis LAP 85 Performance Indicator: FI:085 Student Guide Show Me Table of Contents the Money Watch the Bottom Line 2 Nature of Accounting It’s All in the System 8 Objectives Why bother learning about the 2 nature of accounting? Describe the importance of accounting to an organization. What would you do? 5 Explain basic accounting activities. Use what you’ve learned— 18 right now! 1375 King Avenue, P.O. Box 12279, Columbus, Ohio 43212-0279 Ph: (614) 486-6708 Fax: (614) 486-1819 Details: www.MBAResearch.org Copyright ©2017 by MBA Research and Curriculum Center® LAP-FI-085-CS © 2017, MBA Research and Curriculum Center® Show Me the Money 1 Last winter, Tucker and Ian started a lawn-mowing and snow-shoveling Watch the Bottom Line service. Although they did well initially, business slowed Accounting, which is both a basic business function and a career choice, is the down when summer arrived. Many past process of keeping financial records. Most of us practice some form of accounting clients (who had hired them to clear snow from their driveways) chose to in our daily lives, even if we don’t think of it as accounting. We keep records of mow their own yards. Luckily, though, a our personal funds and our debts so that we know how much money we have and few residents wanted the boys to mow how much we owe. instead of doing the work themselves. To mow these yards, Tucker and Ian Suppose for a moment that it’s your birthday, and your Uncle Pete gives you a needed gasoline for their mowers. -
A Stylistic Approach to the God of Small Things Written by Arundhati Roy
Lingnan University Digital Commons @ Lingnan University Theses & Dissertations Department of English 2007 A stylistic approach to the God of Small Things written by Arundhati Roy Wing Yi, Monica CHAN Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.ln.edu.hk/eng_etd Part of the English Language and Literature Commons Recommended Citation Chan, W. Y. M. (2007). A stylistic approach to the God of Small Things written by Arundhati Roy (Master's thesis, Lingnan University, Hong Kong). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.14793/eng_etd.2 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of English at Digital Commons @ Lingnan University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Lingnan University. Terms of Use The copyright of this thesis is owned by its author. Any reproduction, adaptation, distribution or dissemination of this thesis without express authorization is strictly prohibited. All rights reserved. A STYLISTIC APPROACH TO THE GOD OF SMALL THINGS WRITTEN BY ARUNDHATI ROY CHAN WING YI MONICA MPHIL LINGNAN UNIVERSITY 2007 A STYLISTIC APPROACH TO THE GOD OF SMALL THINGS WRITTEN BY ARUNDHATI ROY by CHAN Wing Yi Monica A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Philosophy in English Lingnan University 2007 ABSTRACT A Stylistic Approach to The God of Small Things written by Arundhati Roy by CHAN Wing Yi Monica Master of Philosophy This thesis presents a creative-analytical hybrid production in relation to the stylistic distinctiveness in The God of Small Things, the debut novel of Arundhati Roy. -
Oregon Benchmarks Spring 2005
Oregon BENCHMARKS THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF OREGON HISTORICAL SOCIETY NEWSLETTER The Birth of the Brandeis Brief Muller v. Oregon: Women, Law, and Labor By John Stephens n 1905, Joe Haselbock, overseer of Portland’s The Supreme Court accepted review on a writ of IGrand Laundry located at 320 N. 17th, required error. This was the Progressive Era and the Oregon one of his employees, Emma Gotcher, to work more statute was not all that unusual. Nineteen other than 10 hours on, of all days, Labor Day, Septem- states had enacted similar legislation. Muller was ber 4. (Labor Day had been a holiday in Oregon special because in 1905, the same year that Gotcher since 1887, first in the nation.) This started the had been forced to work over 10 hours, the Supreme events leading to Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 Continue on page 2 (1908), in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of progressive legislation pro- Our next Famous Case on May 19th viding a 10-hour work day for women, but did so for retrogressive reasons, finding as fact that women Muller v. Oregon (1908) and Bunting v. Oregon were in many respects inferior to men and there- (1917) are the subjects of our May 19, 4 – 6 p.m. fore needing of protection. The opinion is studied Famous Cases presentation at the Hatfield U.S. in history and law school courses, and affects U.S. Courthouse. Our speakers include Julie Novkov, Supreme Court jurisprudence to this day. The case associate professor of political science at Univer- is also the birthplace of the Brandeis Brief. -
The Italian Girl in Algiers
Opera Box Teacher’s Guide table of contents Welcome Letter . .1 Lesson Plan Unit Overview and Academic Standards . .2 Opera Box Content Checklist . .8 Reference/Tracking Guide . .9 Lesson Plans . .11 Synopsis and Musical Excerpts . .32 Flow Charts . .38 Gioachino Rossini – a biography .............................45 Catalogue of Rossini’s Operas . .47 2 0 0 7 – 2 0 0 8 S E A S O N Background Notes . .50 World Events in 1813 ....................................55 History of Opera ........................................56 History of Minnesota Opera, Repertoire . .67 GIUSEPPE VERDI SEPTEMBER 22 – 30, 2007 The Standard Repertory ...................................71 Elements of Opera .......................................72 Glossary of Opera Terms ..................................76 GIOACHINO ROSSINI Glossary of Musical Terms .................................82 NOVEMBER 10 – 18, 2007 Bibliography, Discography, Videography . .85 Word Search, Crossword Puzzle . .88 Evaluation . .91 Acknowledgements . .92 CHARLES GOUNOD JANUARY 26 –FEBRUARY 2, 2008 REINHARD KEISER MARCH 1 – 9, 2008 mnopera.org ANTONÍN DVOˇRÁK APRIL 12 – 20, 2008 FOR SEASON TICKETS, CALL 612.333.6669 The Italian Girl in Algiers Opera Box Lesson Plan Title Page with Related Academic Standards lesson title minnesota academic national standards standards: arts k–12 for music education 1 – Rossini – “I was born for opera buffa.” Music 9.1.1.3.1 8, 9 Music 9.1.1.3.2 Theater 9.1.1.4.2 Music 9.4.1.3.1 Music 9.4.1.3.2 Theater 9.4.1.4.1 Theater 9.4.1.4.2 2 – Rossini Opera Terms Music -
The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures
The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures The Vermont Public Interest Action Project Office of Career Services Vermont Law School Copyright © 2021 Vermont Law School Acknowledgement The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures represents the contributions of several individuals and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their ideas and energy. We would like to acknowledge and thank the state court administrators, clerks, and other personnel for continuing to provide the information necessary to compile this volume. Likewise, the assistance of career services offices in several jurisdictions is also very much appreciated. Lastly, thank you to Elijah Gleason in our office for gathering and updating the information in this year’s Guide. Quite simply, the 2021-2022 Guide exists because of their efforts, and we are very appreciative of their work on this project. We have made every effort to verify the information that is contained herein, but judges and courts can, and do, alter application deadlines and materials. As a result, if you have any questions about the information listed, please confirm it directly with the individual court involved. It is likely that additional changes will occur in the coming months, which we will monitor and update in the Guide accordingly. We believe The 2021-2022 Guide represents a necessary tool for both career services professionals and law students considering judicial clerkships. We hope that it will prove useful and encourage other efforts to share information of use to all of us in the law school career services community. -
From Coverture to Supreme Court Justice Women Lawyers and Judges in Oregon History
RESEARCH FILES From Coverture to Supreme Court Justice Women Lawyers and Judges in Oregon History by Janice Dilg These are really great women and they’re doing great things for women in law. — Agnes Petersen1 WOMEN WHO ADVOCATED for of the legal profession to serving at the right to vote understood that every level of the judiciary in our state enfranchisement was only one step in and nation. full citizenship. With the vote, women The U.S. District Court of Oregon could pursue a range of economic, is the trial court of the federal court civil, and social rights by holding elec- system. Each state in the country has tive office, serving on juries, changing at least one district court, and Oregon’s laws, making laws, and enforcing laws. District Court began with statehood in The U.S. District Court of Oregon 1859. Matthew Deady was appointed Historical Society Oral History Col- the sole U.S. District Judge for Oregon, lection reveals much about the women and he remained the only Oregon who changed both the legal profession District judge for approximately the and the laws of Oregon. Oral histories next three decades. Today, the U.S. of women in this collection span from District Court of Oregon consists of the latter decades of the nineteenth twenty-five Article III, Magistrate, century into the first decade of the and Bankruptcy Court judges based twenty-first. During that time, women in Eugene, Medford, Pendleton, and moved from not having the right to Portland and is currently led by Chief vote or serve on a jury to having law Judge Ann Aiken, who became Chief degrees and working in every aspect in 29. -
Amendments to the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure Have Been Promulgated by the Council on Court Procedures for Submission to the 2021 Legislative Assembly
AMENDMENTS TO THE OREGON RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE promulgated by the COUNCIL ON COURT PROCEDURES December 12, 2020 COUNCIL ON COURT PROCEDURES Judge Members Hon. Lynn Nakamoto, Justice, Oregon Supreme Court, Salem (8/31/21) Hon. Doug Tookey, Judge, Oregon Court of Appeals, Salem (8/31/21) Hon. D. Charles Bailey, Circuit Court Judge, Washington Co. (8/31/21) Hon. R. Curtis Conover, Circuit Court Judge, Lane Co. (8/31/21) Hon. Norman R. Hill, Circuit Court Judge, Polk Co. (8/31/21) Hon. David Euan Leith, Circuit Court Judge, Marion Co (8/31/23) Hon. Thomas McHill, Circuit Court Judge, Linn County (8/31/23) Hon. Susie L. Norby, Circuit Court Judge, Clackamas Co (8/31/21) Hon. Leslie Roberts, Circuit Court Judge, Multnomah Co (8/31/23) Hon. John A. Wolf, Circuit Court Judge, Wasco Co. (8/31/21) Attorney Members Kelly L. Andersen, Medford (8/31/21) Troy S. Bundy, Portland (8/31/23) Kenneth C. Crowley, Salem (8/31/23) (Vice Chair) Travis Eiva, Eugene (8/31/21) Jennifer Gates, Portland (8/31/21) (Chair) Barry Goehler, Lake Oswego (8/31/23) Meredith Holley, Eugene (8/31/21) Drake A. Hood, Hillsboro (8/31/23) Scott O'Donnell, Portland (8/31/21) Shenoa L. Payne, Portland (8/31/21) Tina Stupasky, Eugene (8/31/23) Jeffrey Young, Portland (8/31/23) Public Member Margurite Weeks, Portland (8/31/21) (Treasurer) Staff Mark A. Peterson, Executive Director Shari C. Nilsson, Executive Assistant c/o Lewis and Clark Law School 10101 S. Terwilliger Blvd. Portland, OR 97219 Telephone: (503) 768-6505 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] INTRODUCTION The following amendments to the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure have been promulgated by the Council on Court Procedures for submission to the 2021 Legislative Assembly.