rejecting the defendant's argument that, because an officer was in continuous pursuit of him after he broke free and ran, he was at all times in constructive restraint and therefore took only a substantial step toward escaping — that is, was guilty only of attempted escape in the second degree
Summary of this case from State v. MetcalfeJune 17, 1986.
rejecting the defendant's argument that, because an officer was in continuous pursuit of him after he broke free and ran, he was at all times in constructive restraint and therefore took only a substantial step toward escaping — that is, was guilty only of attempted escape in the second degree
Summary of this case from State v. Metcalfenoting federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of ERISA claims, "except for those [claims] brought pursuant to [29 USC section 1132(a)(B) ] by a participant or beneficiary ‘to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan’ " (quoting 29 USC § 1132(a)(B) )
Summary of this case from Herinckx v. SanelleFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jun 17, 1986
Sanitizing the evidence could have unfairly undermined their credibility by painting an artificial picture of…
U.S. Bank v. Pohrman (In re Comp. of Pohrman)With regard to the “type” of activity that the legislature intended to exclude from compensability, we have…