defamation claim in Oregon

2010Wallulis, 323 Or at 348 .

2004In Oregon “a defamatory communication from one corporate employee to another corporate employee concerning the job performance of a third employee is ‘published’ for the purpose of a defamation claim.” Wallulis, 323 Or at 347 .

2018The Supreme Court then allowed review of our decision "to determine how an actionable statement of fact is distinguished from a constitutionally protected expression of opinion in a defamation claim and whether the context in which a statement is made affects that analysis." Neumann II , 358 Or. at 710 , 369 P.3d 1117 .

2018The Supreme Court then allowed review of our decision "to determine how an actionable statement of fact is distinguished from a constitutionally protected expression of opinion in a defamation claim and whether the context in which a statement is made affects that analysis." Neumann II , 358 Or. at 710 , 369 P.3d 1117 .

2024Cite as 331 Or App 58 (2024) 63 In May 1988, plaintiff filed a defamation claim in the Multnomah County Circuit Court, naming as defen- dants John Burns,3 Miller Nash LLP, Senate President John Kitzhaber, Chevron Industries, Union Oil Company, Texaco Inc., and Exxon Mobil Corporation.4 Burns worked as a lobbyist and lawyer with defendant Miller Nash, and in that role, he represented the oil companies named as defendants.

2024Cite as 331 Or App 58 (2024) 63 In May 1988, plaintiff filed a defamation claim in the Multnomah County Circuit Court, naming as defen- dants John Burns,3 Miller Nash LLP, Senate President John Kitzhaber, Chevron Industries, Union Oil Company, Texaco Inc., and Exxon Mobil Corporation.4 Burns worked as a lobbyist and lawyer with defendant Miller Nash, and in that role, he represented the oil companies named as defendants.

2023Relying on Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 659-60 , 20 1 Lowell II does not implicate our decision in Hofer I affirming the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of OHSU on plaintiff’s medical negligence claim and, thus, we do not address that claim on remand other than to acknowledge and reaffirm it.

2023Relying on Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 659-60 , 20 1 Lowell II does not implicate our decision in Hofer I affirming the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of OHSU on plaintiff’s medical negligence claim and, thus, we do not address that claim on remand other than to acknowledge and reaffirm it.

2016Id. at 599 .

2016Id. at 599 .

2011Brown I, 195 Or App at 715 .

2011Brown I, 195 Or.App. at 715 , 99 P.3d 299 .

2023Multnomah County Circuit Court 18CV14839; A172328 536 P3d 989 This case, which involves a defamation claim brought against defendant, Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), is on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court in light of that court’s decision in Lowell v. Medford School Dist. 549C, 370 Or 79 , 515 P3d 359 (2022).

2023Multnomah County Circuit Court 18CV14839; A172328 536 P3d 989 This case, which involves a defamation claim brought against defendant, Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), is on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court in light of that court’s decision in Lowell v. Medford School Dist. 549C, 370 Or 79 , 515 P3d 359 (2022).

2023Multnomah County Circuit Court 18CV14839; A172328 536 P3d 989 This case, which involves a defamation claim brought against defendant, Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), is on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court in light of that court’s decision in Lowell v. Medford School Dist. 549C, 370 Or 79 , 515 P3d 359 (2022).

2022To establish a claim for intentional interference with economic relations, the plaintiff must prove the follow- ing elements: “(1) the existence of a professional or business relationship (which could include, e.g., a contract or a pro- spective economic advantage); (2) intentional interference with that relationship or advantage; (3) by a third party; (4) accomplished through improper means or for an improper purpose; (5) a causal effect between the interference and the harm to the relationship or prospective advantage; and (6) damages.” Allen v. Hall, 328 Or 276, 281 , 974 P2d 199 (1999). 1

2022To establish a claim for intentional interference with economic relations, the plaintiff must prove the follow- ing elements: “(1) the existence of a professional or business relationship (which could include, e.g., a contract or a pro- spective economic advantage); (2) intentional interference with that relationship or advantage; (3) by a third party; (4) accomplished through improper means or for an improper purpose; (5) a causal effect between the interference and the harm to the relationship or prospective advantage; and (6) damages.” Allen v. Hall, 328 Or 276, 281 , 974 P2d 199 (1999). 1

2021Schiavone, 477 US at 28-29 ; Mitchell, 163 Or at 319-20.7 Essentially, in Mitchell, we recognized that the tavern’s assumed business name was the nickname or alter ego of the registrant. 163 Or App at 319 .

2021The trial court dismissed Carey’s defamation claim on the ground that Siepmann’s statements on the employment verification forms (the alleged defama- tion) were protected by “absolute privilege.” See Ramstead v. Morgan, 219 Or 383, 387-88 , 347 P2d 594 (1959) (explain- ing that statements made in quasi-judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged, so as to ensure that people may speak freely).

2021The trial court dismissed Carey’s defamation claim on the ground that Siepmann’s statements on the employment verification forms (the alleged defama- tion) were protected by “absolute privilege.” See Ramstead v. Morgan, 219 Or 383, 387-88 , 347 P2d 594 (1959) (explain- ing that statements made in quasi-judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged, so as to ensure that people may speak freely).

2021Schiavone, 477 US at 28-29 ; Mitchell, 163 Or at 319-20.7 Essentially, in Mitchell, we recognized that the tavern’s assumed business name was the nickname or alter ego of the registrant. 163 Or App at 319 .

2020Jackson County Circuit Court 13CV04582; A162785 473 P3d 1094 Plaintiff brought a defamation claim against defendants after defendant Wright posted a negative Google review about plaintiff’s piano store.

2018The Supreme Court ultimately adopted the framework established by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Unelko Corp. v. Rooney , 912 F.2d 1049 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. den. , 499 U.S. 961 , 111 S.Ct. 1586 , 113 L.Ed.2d 650 (1991), for assessing whether a statement published online is entitled to protection under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2018The Supreme Court ultimately adopted the framework established by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Unelko Corp. v. Rooney , 912 F.2d 1049 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. den. , 499 U.S. 961 , 111 S.Ct. 1586 , 113 L.Ed.2d 650 (1991), for assessing whether a statement published online is entitled to protection under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2018The Supreme Court ultimately adopted the framework established by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Unelko Corp. v. Rooney , 912 F.2d 1049 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. den. , 499 U.S. 961 , 111 S.Ct. 1586 , 113 L.Ed.2d 650 (1991), for assessing whether a statement published online is entitled to protection under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2014That tort shares two elements in common with an ordinary defamation claim: “(1) the making of a defamatory statement” and “(2) publication of the defamatory material.” National Union, 220 Or App at 584 .

2014Id.

2014Young, 259 Or App at 508-11 .

2012As amplified below, we agree with plaintiff. 9 “As a rule, * * * a subsequent claim is barred by a prior judgment if the earlier litigation proceeded to final judgment, involved the same parties, and concerned a claim arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions.” Aguirre, 201 Or App at 47 (citing Headwaters, Inc. v. U. S. Forest Service, 399 F3d 1047, 1051-57 (9th Cir 2005); Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or 134, 140-41 , 795 P2d 531 (1990)).

2012As amplified below, we agree with plaintiff. 9 “As a rule, * * * a subsequent claim is barred by a prior judgment if the earlier litigation proceeded to final judgment, involved the same parties, and concerned a claim arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions.” Aguirre, 201 Or App at 47 (citing Headwaters, Inc. v. U. S. Forest Service, 399 F3d 1047, 1051-57 (9th Cir 2005); Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or 134, 140-41 , 795 P2d 531 (1990)).