The facts. A father allegedly consented to a sham marriage for his minor daughter to evade the magistrate court’s jurisdiction over a custody dispute with his ex-wife. The mother requested expedited relief to stop the sham marriage, but the magistrate
Notice of Appeal
The Stoel Rives Appellate Law Blog
The Stoel Rives LLP blog covers a range of legal topics with a focus on litigation, regulatory developments, and transactional matters affecting businesses. It provides updates and analysis on insurance law, environmental law, administrative law, and procedural issues such as appeals and damages claims. The blog discusses recent court decisions and legislative changes impacting areas like bad-faith insurance claims, environmental cleanup liability, punitive damages standards, and administrative rulemaking. It serves as a resource for legal professionals and clients seeking insights into complex legal challenges across multiple jurisdictions, emphasizing practical implications for policyholders, insurers, and regulatory compliance.
Latest from Notice of Appeal - Page 3
In Reversal, Minnesota Supreme Court Finds State Law Does Not Preempt Proposed City Charter Amendment On Municipal Waste Collection System
In Jennissen v. City of Bloomington, 913 N.W.2d 456 (2018), the Minnesota Supreme Court recently held that Minn. Stat. § 115A.94 (2016) does not preempt local ordinances concerning municipal waste collection systems, finding that the Legislature did not intend to…
Minnesota Supreme Court Clarifies The Disproportionate Forfeiture Doctrine
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently clarified the application of the doctrine against disproportionate forfeiture under Minnesota contract law in Capistrant v. Lifetouch Nat’l Sch. Studios, Inc., 916 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. 2018). Minnesota courts (and other jurisdictions) have long relied on…
Trespass To Noncommercial Trees: No Effect On The Land’s Market Value? Then No Timber Trespass Claim, Says The Oregon Court Of Appeals
By Rachel Lee
In Harshbarger v. Klamath County, No. A163379, the Oregon Court of Appeals addresses timber trespass claims involving noncommercial, ornamental trees. In such cases, the court holds, the plaintiff must prove either (1) that damage to the trees diminished the…
Oregon Supreme Court Allows Appeal from Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice
By Rachel Lee
In Gist v. Zoan Management, No. S064925, the Oregon Supreme Court clarifies the circumstances under which a party can appeal from a judgment of voluntary dismissal. More than 50 years ago, the Oregon Supreme Court held that “a party…
Can an Orthodontist Tell the Oregon Board of Dentistry to Go Fly a Kite? Not Under ORS 679.170(6)
By Rachel Lee
Angle v Board of Dentistry, No. A162472, decided by the Oregon Court of Appeals on October 17, 2018, is a statutory interpretation case about nonresponsive responses.
ORS 679.170(6) provides that no person shall “fail to respond” to a written…
Oregon Court of Appeals Questions Trial Court’s Authority to Dismiss Case as Sanction for Prelitigation Spoliation
By Rachel Lee
Markstrom v Guard Publishing Co., No. A163317, decided by the Oregon Court of Appeals on October 10, 2018, is about the prelitigation destruction of evidence. The plaintiff, as an employee of the defendant, had been reprimanded and placed on…
Pending Motion to Dismiss Does Not Prevent Filing Answer & Counterclaims
By Rachel Lee
In Wells Fargo v Clark, No. A162461, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that defendants may file an answer and counterclaim even while their ORCP 21 A motion to dismiss is still pending. In this case, on the morning…
Mootness of a Public Meetings Law Challenge
By Rachel Lee
Wood v Wasco County, No. A161351, addresses how to apply mootness principles to an alleged public records violation. In 2014, allegedly without giving proper notice under Oregon’s Public Meetings Law, the Wasco County Board of Commissioners voted to give notice of the county’s…
Reminder: Amendments to the Idaho Appellate Rules and Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure go into effect July 1, 2017
In May, we wrote about amendments to the Idaho Appellate Rules that go into effect July 1, 2017. You can link to the blog post here. The changes impact I.A.R. 11.1, 12.1, 12.2, 25, 27(f), 28(g), 32(b), 33, 34(a),…