The Oregon Supreme Court will hear cases as part of their efforts to connect Oregonians with the work of the judicial system.
The Oregon Supreme Court will hear two arguments on the Lewis & Clark Law Campus. The first argument will begin at 9:00 a.m. and the second will follow at about 10:30 am. You must arrive early; doors will close 10 minutes before each case begins. A brief Q&A session will follow each argument; questions can be submitted in advance, no later than February 29th, using this Q&A form.
You are encouraged to participate live, however, it is recorded for later viewing here. There will also be a live stream in the Legal Research Center Student Lounge. All attendees must abide by these court rules.
The estimated timeline is below (note that the length of each argument can vary):
9:00 -10:00 1st argument
10:00 -10:15 1st Q&A
10:15 -10:25 Break
10:30 -11:30 2nd argument
11:30 -11:45 2nd Q&A
In the first case, Sonja Bohr v. Tillamook County Creamery (S069773), these are the issues covered:
(1) In an action brought under the UTPA, is a plaintiff required to plead reliance to state a claim for relief under any of the following circumstances:
(a) if the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had engaged in an unlawful trade practice in violation of ORS 646.608(1)(b) (prohibiting practice of causing the likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods);
(b) if the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had engaged in conduct in violation of ORS 646.608(1)(d) (prohibiting use of deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods) or (1)(e) (prohibiting, in part, representations that goods have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities or qualities that the goods do not have), and further alleged that the defendant’s conduct had inflated the market price of the defendant’s products or otherwise caused the plaintiffs to pay more for the product than they otherwise would; or
(c) if the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had engaged in conduct that is unlawful independently of the consumer transaction, such that the defendant’s unlawful conduct occurs before the point of sale?
(2) If a defendant engages in conduct that causes inflated prices of its products across the market, does a plaintiff who purchases a product at the inflated price suffer an “ascertainable loss” within the meaning of the UTPA?
More details can be found on the Supreme Court’s docket.
In the second case, State of Oregon v. Kevin Lavin Taylor (S070387), these are the issues covered:
(1) What are the contours of the “plan” theory of admissibility for other-acts evidence under Oregon Evidence Code 404(3)?
(2) Does the “spurious plan” theory depend on impermissible propensity reasoning?
(3) If this court accepts the “spurious plan” theory, what test for that theory should the court adopt?
More details can be found on the Supreme Court’s docket.
If you have any questions, contact the events team at lawevent@lclark.edu.
