scienter requirement in Oregon

2024Defendant argues that strict liability should be limited to regulatory or public welfare offenses with minor penalties, citing Rehaif v. United States, 588 US 225, 232 , 139 S Ct 2191 , 204 L Ed 2d 594 (2019) (“We have sometimes declined to read a scienter requirement into criminal stat- utes.

2024Defendant argues that strict liability should be limited to regulatory or public welfare offenses with minor penalties, citing Rehaif v. United States, 588 US 225, 232 , 139 S Ct 2191 , 204 L Ed 2d 594 (2019) (“We have sometimes declined to read a scienter requirement into criminal stat- utes.

2026The Court then noted that it has “sometimes declined to read a scienter requirement into criminal stat- utes.” Id.

2026But the Court went on, it has “typically declined to apply the presumption in favor of scienter in cases involv- ing statutory provisions that form part of a ‘regulatory’ or ‘public welfare’ program and carry only minor penalties.” Id.

2015In Marsh II, the Supreme Court reversed our decision and held that “the requisite reliance [under ORS 59.137] may be established by a plaintiff who purchases stock in an open and efficient market by means of the rebut-table presumption available under the fraud-on-the-market doctrine.” 353 Or at 23 .

2015We also declined to address the court’s alternative reasoning regarding the existence and constitutional implications of a scienter requirement, other than to note in passing that the constitutional question was properly analyzed under preemption principles rather than the dormant Commerce Clause. 241 Or App at 112 n 3.

2010State v. Pierre, 30 Or App 81, 86 , 566 P2d 534 (1977); Eyerly, 37 Or App at 406 .

2010State v. Pierre, 30 Or App 81, 86 , 566 P2d 534 (1977); Eyerly, 37 Or App at 406 .

2010State v. Pierre, 30 Or App 81, 86 , 566 P2d 534 (1977); Eyerly, 37 Or App at 406 .

1982And the Court has recognized that a scienter requirement may mitigate a law's vagueness, especially with respect to the adequacy of notice to the complainant that his conduct is proscribed." Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., supra, ___ U.S. ___, at ___, 102 S.Ct. 1186 at 1193 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362, at 371-2 . [7] Lower court decisions invalidating such laws because they cover innocent uses, the Supreme Court wrote, "may reflect a belief that these measures are ineffective in stemming illegal drug use.

1982And the Court has recognized that a scienter requirement may mitigate a law's vagueness, especially with respect to the adequacy of notice to the complainant that his conduct is proscribed." Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., supra, ___ U.S. ___, at ___, 102 S.Ct. 1186 at 1193 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362, at 371-2 . [7] Lower court decisions invalidating such laws because they cover innocent uses, the Supreme Court wrote, "may reflect a belief that these measures are ineffective in stemming illegal drug use.

1955There can be no question under the law of this state that in order to recover damages for deceit conscious knowledge of the untruth of a statement, or the doctrine of scienter, must be established: Howard v. Merrick, 145 Or 573 , 27 P2d 891 ; Medford National Bank v. Blanchard, 136 Or 467 , 299 P 301 ; however, the law recognizes that such knowledge may be imputed to the one making the representations when the statement “is attended by conscious ignorance of or reckless indifference to its truth or falsity”.

1955There can be no question under the law of this state that in order to recover damages for deceit conscious knowledge of the untruth of a statement, or the doctrine of scienter, must be established: Howard v. Merrick, 145 Or 573 , 27 P2d 891 ; Medford National Bank v. Blanchard, 136 Or 467 , 299 P 301 ; however, the law recognizes that such knowledge may be imputed to the one making the representations when the statement “is attended by conscious ignorance of or reckless indifference to its truth or falsity”.

1955There can be no question under the law of this state that in order to recover damages for deceit conscious knowledge of the untruth of a statement, or the doctrine of scienter, must be established: Howard v. Merrick, 145 Or 573 , 27 P2d 891 ; Medford National Bank v. Blanchard, 136 Or 467 , 299 P 301 ; however, the law recognizes that such knowledge may be imputed to the one making the representations when the statement “is attended by conscious ignorance of or reckless indifference to its truth or falsity”.

1955There can be no question under the law of this state that in order to recover damages for deceit conscious knowledge of the untruth of a statement, or the doctrine of scienter, must be established: Howard v. Merrick, 145 Or 573 , 27 P2d 891 ; Medford National Bank v. Blanchard, 136 Or 467 , 299 P 301 ; however, the law recognizes that such knowledge may be imputed to the one making the representations when the statement “is attended by conscious ignorance of or reckless indifference to its truth or falsity”.

1955Horner v. Wagy, *287 173 Or 441, 459 , 146 P2d 92 .

1955Horner v. Wagy, *287 173 Or 441, 459 , 146 P2d 92 .