SUPREME COURT
Media Release
COPIES:
Copies of the slip opinions may be obtained from the Appellate Records Section, (503) 986-5555
The full text of these opinions can be found at http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/
Contact:
Stephen P. Armitage
Staff Attorney
(503) 986-7023
On March 28, 2013, the Supreme Court:
1.
Allowed petitions for review in: 1
S. Fred Hall v. State of Oregon (S060879) (A146386) (appeal from Linn County Circuit
Court; opinion reported at 252 Or App 649, 288 P3d 574 (2012)).
S. Fred Hall and Viewcrest Investments, LLC, have been granted review of a
Court of Appeals decision that reversed and remanded a jury verdict in their favor on their
claim for inverse condemnation.
On review, the issues are:
(1) Does a plaintiff satisfy its burden of proof in a "blight takings" claim by
proving that an alleged taking substantially interferes with the plaintiff's property interest?
(2) Does a plaintiff in a takings case under Article I, section 18, of the
Oregon Constitution have to prove not only that the government intended to take the
property for "public use," but also that the government intended to take the property for the
"public good"?
State of Oregon v. Stephen Wayne Ziska (S060946) (Control) (A145162) (appeal from
Washington County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 253 Or App 82, 288 P3d 1012
(2012)). (Consolidated with State of Oregon v. Margarito Garza (S060995) (A146764)
(appeal from Washington County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 253 Or App 551, 291
P3d 774 (2012)).
1
These summaries of cases are prepared for the benefit of members of the
media to assist them in reporting the court's activities to the public. Parties and
practitioners should not rely on the summaries, or the statement of issues to be decided in
the summaries, as indicating the questions that the Supreme Court will consider.
Regarding the questions that the Supreme Court may consider, see Oregon Rule of
Appellate Procedure 9.20.
1
Defendant Stephen Wayne Ziska and defendant Margarito Garza have been
granted review of separate Court of Appeals decisions that affirmed their convictions for
unlawful use of a weapon.
On review, the issue is:
Does a person commit the felony offense of unlawful use of a weapon by
carrying a dangerous weapon with the intent to threaten someone?
State of Oregon v. Daniel Steven Zolotoff (S061003) (A145303) (appeal from Marion
County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 253 Or App 593, 291 P3d 781 (2012)).
The State of Oregon has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision
that reversed and remanded a trial court decision refusing to give the defendant's requested
jury instruction on a lesser-included offense. The Court of Appeals agreed with the state's
concession that the trial court had erred, but rejected the state's argument that the error was
harmless because the jury had convicted on the charged offense, and that under the
"acquittal first" requirement of ORS 136.460(2), the jury would not have had the
opportunity to consider the lesser-included offense.
On review, the issue is:
If a trial court erroneously fails to instruct the jury on a lesser-included
offense, is the error harmless if the jury returns a guilty verdict on the charged offense?
2.
Issued an alternative writ of mandamus in:
Crimson Trace Corporation v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP (S061086) (original
mandamus proceeding; order from Multnomah County Circuit Court).
Defendant Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus, seeking a writ directing the trial court to vacate an order granting a motion filed
by plaintiff Crimson Trace Corporation to compel the production of documents that
defendant claims are subject to the lawyer-client privilege. The Oregon Supreme Court
allowed the petition and issued an alternative writ of mandamus.
The issue in this mandamus proceeding is as follows:
Whether a lawyer's communications with in-house counsel regarding matters
involving a current client of the firm are protected by the lawyer-client privilege, OEC 503.
2
3.
Allowed the petition for review in Department of Human Services v.
J. G. (S060767) (A150208), vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, and remanded to
the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Department of Human Services v. G. D.
W., (S059950) (A147584) (opinion reported at 353 Or 25, 292 P3d 548 (2012)).
4.
Denied petitions for review in:
State of Oregon v. Kierin Diane Nichols (S060835) (A141527)
Randy D. Fisher v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (S060866)
(A142990)
B. A. v. Edward Webb (S060878) (A140608)
State of Oregon v. Byron Gilbert Pickle (S060886) (A150197)
Cornus Corporation v. GEAC Enterprise Solutions, Inc. (S060894) (A146476)
(Kistler and Linder, JJ., would allow)
State of Oregon v. Boyd Robert Carroll (S060898) (A146784)
Scott David Bowen v. Mark Nooth (S060903) (A149556)
State ex rel Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC v. Clatsop County (S060904)
(A148770)
State of Oregon v. Kyle Michael Brunner (S060918) (A148815)
State of Oregon v. Rebecca Kaylor (S060926) (A140023)
State of Oregon v. Russell Everett Ellis (S060927) (A145688)
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Oregon v. Kevinia L. Frazer (S060932) (A146596)
State of Oregon v. Johnny Smith (S060939) (A143661)
Department of Human Services v. R. S. (S060940) (A151444)
Department of Human Services v. S. J. (S060945) (A151503) (A151508)
(A151509) (A151511) (A151513)
Department of Human Services v. K. J. B. (S060953) (A151419)
Department of Human Services v. S. C. S. (S060959) (A150957)
State of Oregon v. V. H. (S060965) (A150372)
Jeremy R. Lehman v. Department Of Corrections (S060967) (A148990)
State of Oregon v. Stephen Kent Barnett (S060974) (A150175)
James Dale Hall, Jr. v. Mark Nooth (S060985) (A150761)
Erik Bean v. Mark Nooth (S060986) (A149786)
Rigoverto Ayala v. Rick Coursey (S060987) (A150632)
Thomas Rivera v. Rick Coursey (S060988) (A149803)
David Lee Moore v. Steve Franke (S061004) (A150596)
Nikky L. Allen v. Jeff Premo (S061007) (A146984)
State of Oregon v. Jonathon Brian Kelly (S061010) (A146020)
State of Oregon v. Luis Raymond Guerra, Jr. (S061013) (A146683)
State of Oregon v. Edward Theodore Bolton, Jr. (S061016) (A147875)
John David Delp v. Rick Angelozzi (S061040) (A149569)
Robert Edward Menke v. State of Oregon (S061069) (A148474)
State of Oregon v. Avis Keith Wood-Rum (S061077) (A149605)
3
Department of Human Services v. W. H. F. (S061083) (A150794)
Jorge Alberto Cisneros Gutierrez v. Mark Nooth (S061092) (A150066)
Ernest Moore v. Nancy Howton (S061099) (A150939)
State of Oregon v. Patrick Roman Garcia (S061110)
5.
Denied petitions for writ of mandamus in:
State of Oregon v. Richard Lucas Koenig (S061021)
Clackamas River Water v. Clackamas County (S061115) (Control) (S061116)
6.
Publically reprimanded attorney William E. Pierson (Bar
No. 021727)
4