Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Montana State University agreed to pay Mike Kramer $240,000 to settle the lawsuit he filed arising out of his termination in 2007. The court threw out some of his claims, including breach of contract. What remained for trial was whether MSU libeled, slandered or defamed Mike Kramer when it remarked on the termination.

Montana State terminated Kramer after police arrested players for trafficking cocaine and after the school lost scholarships for not meeting NCAA academic requirements. Kramer believed that comments referring to this as a "crises in leadership," for which he was responsible, hurt his ability to land another coaching job.

In Oregon, defamation claims require proof of the following:

1. A false statement.
2. The statement is communicated to a third person.
3. The statement tends to diminish the person's reputation, and
4. Either damage or a statement that is hurtful "per se.

" Typically, a person must prove harm or money loss before a court will get involved. The exceptions are for statements that we consider "defamatory per se." Examples include statements that a person has a "loathsome disease," are unfit for their employment duties, committed a crime involving "moral turpitude," or other statements that prejudice someone in their profession.

Although I did not see the paperwork in Coach Kramer's case, it appears that the trial would have proceeded on the claim that he was defamed by statements imputing an inability to lead a football program.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
Injury & Employment Law
503-665-4234

The above is not legal advice. I cannot give you sound advice without knowing more information. It is intended to raise some issues for you to discuss with your own lawyer.

Washington State's Attorney General announced settlement of claims of unfair and deceptive practices by Intelius, an online seller of personal information. Intelius agreed to pay $1.3 million to resolve claims that it, basically, tricked people into signing up for a $20 per month service after consumers purchased the information they intended to buy but before they could complete the online checkout.

Attorney General Robert McKenna described the process as an "online labyrinth" designed to confuse and trap people. Although it took seconds sign up for the program, the company made cancelling a maddening process of long telephone waits and ignoring requests..

The 40-page legal complaint details the scheme and the sections of Washington law upon which the Attorney General proceeded. Oregon has similar consumer protection laws.

Too often, companies get away with tricking people out of $40 dollars here and $80 dollars there because people figure it is not worth their time to fight. When companies do this to thousands and thousands of people, then they can make millions of dollars. Here, Intelius got $62 million dollars from the program. In these situations where a little money is obtained from thousands of people, it takes Attorneys General and private lawyers to enforce the civil law.

Yes, we "trial lawyers" are the targets of Republican Politicians and comedians. But without us, there would be very few "cops" protecting consumers from alleged crooks.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
503-665-4234

United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. The court's opinion is meticulous. The opinion reveals that the lawyers were extremely careful to create a record to support every contention asserted and to undercut the myths of the Prop 8 proponents.

Because the court and the lawyers grounded findings in the trial court record, the Ninth Circuit should uphold it.

The Supreme Court? Unfortunately, these days, the only rule that seems to control the U.S. Supreme Court is the "Rule of Five." By that, I mean that the Supremes seem unbound by any legal standards and perform legal gymnastics to reach the results that five of them want. The Rehnquist Court was the most activist in our nation's history, and the Roberts Court seems to be following its lead. Nevertheless, the care and seriousness with which the parties and the court addressed Proposition 8 might require the Five Supremes to bend and twist like Cirque du Soliel to circumvent the trial court record.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
503-665-4234

A North Bend, Oregon man asked about suing his noisy neighbors who he believed were often drunk, and certainly loud. He'd called the police, but "what else can I do?" he asked.

Oregon law of nuisance covers an invasion of another person's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land. Whether you hold the land as an owner or tenant with a lease does not matter. If it is your property, then you have a right to reasonable peace and quiet.

Here's what you need to win the lawsuit.

First, your neighbors must be doing something that is hurting your use and enjoyment of land. The legal standard is that it must be the kind of harm that a normal person in your community would not put up with. A slight inconvenience or annoyance is not enough. If your neighbors party once per year, then you'd have no claim. If they fight every night and you can't relax in your home, then you could prove "significant harm." If your neighbor's conduct is somewhere in between, then a jury will need to decide if the extent of the harm adds up to a nuisance.

Second, your neighbor's conduct must be intentional. If you are suffering in silence, then you might not be able to show that your neighbor's conduct is "intentional." Make sure your neighbors know that you can hear their fights and it is ruining the use and enjoyment of your home. A certified letter would do. If they do not sign for it, slip one under the door and keep track of when you did it.

Jeff Merrick, Lake Oswego, Oregon
503-665-4234

The above is not legal advice. I cannot give you reliable advice without knowing more information. It is intended to raise some issues for you to discuss with your own lawyer.

A Portland, Oregon woman recently learned that her ex-boyfriend secretly videotaped them having sex. She was very upset, and she wanted to know her rights.

A few years ago, the owner of an Oregon tanning salon videotaped naked women in his store. He recorded some women trying on swimsuits in dressing rooms and in the "private" tanning rooms. We represented a woman, sued, and recovered money for her. But more importantly, I went to the legislature, and we got a law passed.

ORS 163.700 makes it a crime to secretly photograph or videotape another person who is nude if the person reasonably expected privacy in the place and under the circumstances.

ORS 30.865 strengthened the right to sue in civil court for nude pictures or video. It expanded the existing right to sue for invasion of privacy by creating a claim for attorney fees on top of compensatory money damages. The law covers all of the following: (1) the photographing or recording (2) peeping toms who do not record (3) taking pics or videos of intimate areas, which would include "upskirt" shots, and (4) uploading or otherwise disseminating the pictures or videos.

I suggested to the woman that she give her ex-boyfriend 48 hours to deliver the videos and otherwise satisfy her that her privacy would be restored before bringing the law down on him.

Jeff Merrick, Oregon Trial Attorney
503-665-4234