The Oregon Health and Science University Hospital could escape most of a court-ordered $12 million payment to a patient's family because of a state law that limits how much money judges can order publicly-funded entities to pay to plaintiffs who pursue civil litigation.
The Oregon Court of Appeals has rejected claims from the Friends of the Columbia Gorge that criticized the Columbia River Gorge Commission's plan to manage air quality in the region. The Friends argued the strategy does not include enough regional-specific regulation and fails to properly address many of the air-related problems directly around the Gorge, but the court disagreed with that assertion.
The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the city of Beaverton, deciding that it is only required to pay $200,000 of the over $1 million in damages initially granted to a woman who was injured after being struck by a police car. The state's highest court agreed to hear the case after Beaverton took the case to a civil appeals court, claiming that the Oregon Tort Claims Act protects it from having to pay more than $200,000 in damages. However, the case has yet to be resolved, as the Supreme Court only forwarded its recommendation, which is not legally binding, to the appeals court.
An Oregon car dealership is considering whether to appeal a decision ordering to pay $100,000 the way it handled a debt collection case. The complex matter divided the civil appeals court that most recently heard the case; the court approved $100,000 in punitive damage with a 5-4 judgment, while the dissenting judges thought this was excessive and argued for a $25,000 award.
A real estate developer will pay $260,000 to avoid further litigation in an appeals case filed by a former Oregon official who objected to a 230-unit apartment facility currently being constructed by the developer in downtown Eugene. The man's primary concern with the project was related to its impact on traffic for the city and 10-year tax exemption granted to the development by the Eugene City Council.
The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled against a natural gas company over a county's ability to block construction of a 41-mile pipeline despite formerly approving the project. The county commission voted in favor of zoning for a terminal that would feed the pipeline in 2010, but a new group of commissioners overturned that approval several months later. The company behind the pipeline, Oregon LNG, filed a lawsuit against the county in response, arguing that the commission's initial approval was wrongfully reversed. However, the state Court of Appeals disagreed with that assertion, blocking the civil litigation and siding with the county.
There are certain processes that need to take place when a business fires an employee from his or her job or penalizes them for performance issues. However, in some instances, a change in employment occurs after an employee files a complaint or stands up to infractions of procedures committed by superior management. It appears that this type of retaliatory reaction occurred to an ex-officer from Eugene
Normally immune from any extenuating legal battles that may be elicited while on the Capitol floor, the Oregon Appeals Court has determined that lawmakers can be subpoenaed to testify in court on matters related to their actual governing. The appeals court ruling stems from an appeal from protesters who were arrested after conducting an overnight vigil on the Capitol steps.
The Sierra Club of Oregon wants to let the public know about the potential dangers of a project that might be coming to Port of Coos Bay, but the club does not want to pay the hefty price that comes with doing so. To remedy this, the club recently filed a civil appeal with the Coos County District Attorney's Office over the matter.
A 63-year-old woman from Yachats, Oregon, lost a civil appeals case with the state's highest court after she was convicted of harassing wildlife and banished from her home. It was the final chapter in two years of legal proceedings surrounding the case.