March 7, 2005
MAR. 11: Oregon Supreme Court Visits
Oregon Supreme Court hears
of the legal research and writing curriculum at the University of Oregon School of Law. Sessions are open to Lane County high school and college students and the public. All of the justices will be present: Chief Justice Wallace P. Carson, Jr., Associate Justices Thomas A. Balmer, Paul J. DeMuniz, Robert D. Durham, W. Michael Gillette, Rives Kistler and R. William Riggs.
The Cases:
9:00-10:00 a.m. Bloomfield v. Weakland (Case #1)
The owner of an oceanfront lot in Waldport stopped allowing the use of his ten-foot-wide beach walkway to other Sea Woods Park subdivision residents even though they had been using it since the mid-1950s. The plaintiffs believe the private walkway referred to in each of their deeds was clearly for common use. The defendant disagreed, arguing that it belonged to the owners of three adjacent lots alone. The case has been wending its way through the courts since 1991 and the defendant argues that it was settled in a related suit years ago.
George Kelly (Eugene) for petitioner on review
Thomas L. Gallagher, Jr. (Corvallis) for respondents on review.
10:30-11:30 a.m. State v. James Louis Jones (Case #2)
In December 2003, a Douglas County man was accused of shooting and killing his estranged wife’s boyfriend, Stephen Phillip Floyd, and of attempting to kill her at her Sutherlin mobile home. He surrendered to police after several hours of negotiations and part of his interrogation was videotaped without his knowledge.
He successfully moved to suppress the portion of the interview taped before he was notified that he was being recorded. The state appealed the decision, which has been filed directly with the Supreme Court.
Erika L. Hadlock, Oregon assistant attorney general, for appellant
1:30-2:30 p.m. Hager v. Read (Case #3)
General and bariatric surgeon Robert A. Read was sued by patient (Ms.) Sunhee Hager for professional negligence in October 2003 in Corvallis, Ore. She asked to be shown certain documents he had sent to the board of medical examiners. He objected, saying the documents were confidential, because they were compulsory correspondence submitted to the examiners as an “appearance” in a licensing investigation. While live meetings with the examiners are confidential, the issue is whether written communications are privileged as well.
John E. Pollino (Salem), for relator.
Edward L. Daniels (Albany) for adverse party
(Daniels is a 1973 graduate of the law school.)
CASE INFO: http://www.ojd.state.or.us/scdocket
- E.S.
