City of Portland v. Nudelman

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Winters

    170 Or. App. 118 (Or. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 13 times

    There is no meaningful distinction between the circumstances in Brink and those present in this case. Our decision in City of Portland v. Nudelman, 45 Or. App. 425, 608 P.2d 1190, rev den 289 Or. 1190 (1980), is not to the contrary. In Nudelman, we held that an appraisal report that was not prepared in anticipation of condemnation litigation was not privileged. Our conclusion was grounded on the facts that "[t]he report at issue * * * was prepared before the plaintiff had decided to acquire the property in question and long before any steps toward preparing litigation were made."

  2. Carlson v. Piper Aircraft Corp.

    646 P.2d 43 (Or. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 11 times
    In Carlson v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 57 Or. App. 695, 703-05, 646 P.2d 43, rev den 293 Or. 801(1982), for example, we concluded that a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator could not testify regarding the cause of the mid-air breakup of an airplane.

    We agree. See City of Portland v. Nudelman, 45 Or. App. 425, 608 P.2d 1190, rev den 289 Or. 275 (1980). Plaintiff's last claim is that the trial court erred in excluding a portion of the deposition testimony of Mr. Powers, an aircraft accident investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

  3. Susbauer Rd. v. Wash. Cnty. Assessor

    TC-MD 230056N (Or. T.C. Sep. 7, 2023)

    In Brink v. Multnomah County, 224 Or. 507, 517, 356 P.2d 536 (1960), the Supreme Court held, in the context of a condemnation proceeding, that an appraisal report having been prepared at the time a lawsuit was threatened or already existed "was sufficient to bring the report [and testimony relating to it] within the [attorney-client] privilege." Cf. City of Portland v. Nudelman, 45 Or.App. 425, 433, 608 P.2d 1190 (1980) rev den 289 Or. 275 (1980) (holding that, in the context of a condemnation proceeding, an appraisal report prepared "long before any steps toward preparing litigation were made" was not protected by the attorney-client privilege). Plaintiff argues that, even if Volokitin's BOPTA work papers are privileged, Defendant waived that privilege when it submitted Volokitin's report to BOPTA.