A Note from the Chair
Governor Appoints New Judges to Court of Appeals
On October 17, 2013, Governor Kitzhaber announced the appointment of Joel S. DeVore, Erin C. Lagesen, and Douglas L. Tookey to fill three new positions on the Oregon Court of Appeals created by the passage of House Bill 4026 in 2012.
Mr. DeVore received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Politics from Antioch College and his Juris Doctorate from the University of Oregon. He began his legal career as a law clerk for Judge Tom Young on the Oregon Court of Appeals and has been in private practice since 1983, first in Pendleton at the law firm of Mautz Hallman, and now in Eugene at the law firm of Luvaas Cobb. Mr. DeVore practices civil litigation with an emphasis in appellate work. He also handles repair cases for the Professional Liability Fund and serves as legal counsel to the Eugene and Corvallis School Districts. He is a frequent writer and speaker on civil litigation issues and has served as a Lawyer Representative on the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. Before law school, Mr. DeVore served as an Ombudsperson for the city of Anchorage, Alaska.
Ms. Lagesen received her Bachelor of Arts in English and Mathematics from Williams College, her Master of Science in Mathematics from the University of Oregon, and her Master of Education from Harvard University. She taught math at Milwaukie High School before receiving her law degree from Willamette University College of Law. After law school, Ms. Lagesen clerked for Judge Susan Graber on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and worked as a litigation associate at Stoel Rives. In 2004, she joined the Appellate Division of the Oregon Department of Justice, where she has handled hundreds of appeals of civil, criminal, and administrative cases in state and federal court. She recently worked on a team that handled a case in the United State Supreme Court. She also is an appellate lawyer representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, member and past chair of the executive committee of the Oregon State Bar Constitutional Law section, and a coach of the Franklin High School constitutional law team, which is part of the “We the People” program of the Classroom Law Project. Ms. Lagesen was born and raised in Portland, and is a graduate of Wilson High School.
Mr. Tookey received his Bachelor of Arts degree in English from the University of Chicago, his Juris Doctorate from Cornell Law School, and his LL.M. from the National University of Singapore. After law school, he served as a law clerk for Judge Edward W. Nottingham on the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado and then for Judge Emilio M. Garza on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He worked as an environmental law attorney in private practice in Washington D.C. and then spent over a decade working on a variety of projects to improve access to justice and respect for the rule of law in developing countries, including Fulbright Scholarships in Singapore and Kazakhstan; serving as an observer to elections in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Ukraine; and serving as a United States Department of State Office of Citizen Exchanges and Dickinson College Fellow on managing environmental resources in the Middle East. In 2006, he joined the Office of Legislative Counsel for the Oregon Legislative Assembly where he serves as counsel to the 90 members of the Legislature and provides written legal opinions, writes laws, and reviews agency rules, with an emphasis on environmental law and natural resources. Mr. Tookey is an active mentor to law students and works with high school students through the Classroom Law Project and the Imprint Program.
New Oregon Appellate Filing Fees Effective October 1, 2013
The Oregon appellate courts’ appellate filing fees have changed:
Civil Appeals and Judicial Review (ORS 21.010)
- Appellant (or Cross-Appellant) Fee $373
- Petitioner (or Cross-Petitioner) Fee $373
- Respondent Fee $373
Original Jurisdiction Mandamus, Habeas Corpus, and Quo Warranto Proceedings (ORS 21.010(5))
- Plaintiff or Petitioner $373
- Defendant or Respondent $373
Motions in Civil Appeal or Judicial Review
- Motion to Dismiss – Filing (by Respondent) $50
- Motion to Dismiss – Response/Answer $50
- Motion to Determine Jurisdiction – Filing $50
- Motion to Determine Jurisdiction – Response/Answer $50
- Motion to Continue or Extend Time – Filing $50
- Motion to Continue or Extend Time – Response/Answer $50
Appellate Practice Section’s Annual Bench/Bar CLE and Social
U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIEW AND PREVIEW
Tuesday, October 1, 2013 – 4:00pm – 6:00pm
Standard Insurance
900 SW Fifth Avenue Basement Auditorium
Portland, OR
- Jeffrey C. Dobbins, Professor of Law, Willamette University College of Law; Former Law Clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
- William Funk, Robert E. Jones Professor of Advocacy and Ethics, Lewis & Clark Law School; Author,Introduction to American Constitutional Structure
- Scott L. Nelson, Attorney, Public Citizen Litigation Group; Former Law Clerk to Justice Byron R. White; Supreme Court Practitioner
- Jay Austin, Senior Attorney and Director, Endangered Environmental Laws Program, Environmental Law Institute; Board Member, Oregon Lawyer Chapter of the American Constitution Society.
Telecommute to the February 28, 2013 CLE!
People outside the Portland area who wish to listen-in on the section’s February 28, 2013 Brown Bag CLE program may do so by telephone. If you are interested in registering as a call-in listener, please contact Derek Green for details at (503) 778-5264.
Appellate Legislation Introduced
Three bills have been introduced before the Oregon Legislature that may be of interest to section members:
- Senate Bill 50: Relating to trial court jurisdiction after notice of appeal has been filed; declaring an emergency.
- House Bill 2451: Relating to judges; declaring an emergency.
- House Bill 2562: Relating to courts; declaring an emergency.
Upcoming Brown Bag CLE
Temporary ORAP Amendments Effective Today!
Effective January 28, 2013, the appellate courts will implement a number of temporary ORAP amendments. These result from process changes flowing from the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Electronic Content Management System — the final component of Oregon eCourt implementation in the appellate courts — and from the corresponding increased use of electronic documents in the appellate courts. As part of Oregon eCourt implementation, the Appellate Court Records Section (ACRS) no longer creates paper files for appellate cases; instead, ACRS maintains a more efficient electronic case file.
The temporary ORAP amendments may be found here, and a summary of the changes in Chief Justice Order 13-001/Chief Judge Order 13-02 is provided below:
- For conventional filings (i.e., submitted over the counter or by mail), the number of required copies of numerous documents is being decreased. For example, the number of copies of petitions for review and responses in the Supreme Court is being reduced from twelve to zero, and the number of copies of briefs in the Court of Appeals is being reduced from thirteen to five. A chart that summarizes the copy requirement changes for each court is attached to the Chief Justice/Chief Judge Order.
- The original of all conventionally filed briefs must have white paper covers of the same weight as the rest of the brief. This facilitates scanning of the original by ACRS staff to create an electronic version for the court’s appellate file and for further use by the court. (If copies of the particular brief are still required, the copies of conventionally filed briefs must still conform to the previous color and weight requirements, with exceptions for Supreme Court petitions for review and reconsideration, and responses to same.) The current email requirement set out in ORAP 9.17(6), relating to Supreme Court briefs, is being deleted.
- Corrections or amendments to previous filings must be made by submitting the entire corrected or amended filing. Previously, the courts had allowed parties to resubmit only the affected page(s). Any conventional copy requirement or eFiling document recovery charge that applied to the initial document again applies to the amended or corrected document.
- A motion or response to a motion and a supporting memorandum of law must be submitted as a single document, not as separate documents.
- A brief or other document that is the subject of a motion for leave to file that is granted, if filed simultaneously with the motion, will be treated as having been filed on the same date as the motion. Relatedly, a response to a memorandum of additional authorities filed simultaneously with a motion for leave to file is due 14 days after the entry date of the order granting the motion.
- When preparing an eFiling containing multiple parts, the filing must be submitted as a unified, single PDF file, rather than as separate eFiled documents or as a principal eFiled document with attached supporting documents, with only narrow exceptions that are specified in the rules. Examples of documents that must be eFiled as a single PDF file include: (1) notice of appeal, judgment being appealed, and certificate of service; (2) petition for judicial review, agency order as to which review is sought, and certificate of service; (3) petition for reconsideration, underlying decision as to which reconsideration is sought, and certificate of service; (4) petition for review, Court of Appeals decision as to which review is sought, and certificate of service; (5) motion, affidavit or declaration (if any), and certificate of service; (6) Supreme Court mandamus or habeas corpus petition, copy of order or written decision, and certificate of service; (7) Supreme Court memorandum in support of a mandamus or habeas corpus petition, excerpt of record, and certificate of service.
- A filing or attachment that includes confidential or sealed material must include in the caption the words “Includes Confidential Attachment” (or “sealed,” as appropriate) and must state in the filing the authority by which the attachment is deemed confidential or sealed. Also, a filer may not eFile a document that is sealed by operation of law or court order or — more typically — a document that has an attachment containing sealed material.
- Current ORAP 16.60, which, among other things, prohibits eFiling briefs in confidential cases, is being deleted.
- If an eFiler changes his or her email address, then the eFiler must notify the Oregon Judicial Department Enterprise Technology Division, as directed in an amendment to ORAP 16.10(2)(a)(v).
- Also, a companion Chief Justice/Chief Judge Order, 12-048/12-048 (September 5, 2012) updated — and in many cases, reduced — the number of copies for which an eFiling document recovery charge is assessed under ORAP 16.20(2). The updated Supreme Court document recovery charge list is here, and the Court of Appeals list is here.