Oregon Supreme Court, 2015

The court reversed the Court of Appeals and reversed and remanded the post-conviction judgment on petitioner’s claim that trial counsel inadequately failed to request a limiting instruction, while otherwise affirming that judgment.

The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts, holding that Oregon's comparative fault statutes eliminate the common‑law indemnity doctrine based on an active‑passive negligence distinction, and therefore the county was not entitled to indemnity from the contractor.