The quality of any legal representation is measured by the ability of the attorney to think critically about the law, and the results obtained for clients. The following are just some of the examples of the legal analysis and cases which are representative of the work of the attorneys and staff at Hostetter Law Group, LLP. Although each of the cases listed below is of public record, the identity of the parties have been withheld out of respect to our clients.
________________ v. ______________. An out of state bank sued the clients, a husband and wife, in an Oregon court alleging that they owed the Bank money. The bank hired a debt collector who was not registered to collect debts in the state of Oregon to attempt to collect the alleged debt from the couple. The couple filed a response denying that they owed any money to the bank, and that the bank’s debt collector had stalked the couple and their children, had interfered with their friends, church members, and business relationships, and had engaged in a years-long campaign of deviant and intimidating practices, all in violation of Oregon collection laws and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. While the litigation was pending, a stalking protective order was issued against the debt collector. The bank settled the action by paying the couple a multi-million dollar settlement. The debt collector subsequently served a sentence of one year in jail as a result of his actions.
_______________ v. _______________. In this case the owner of hundreds of exotic horses requested that the clients, a husband and wife with well-paying jobs quit their jobs and come to work for her on the horse ranch. The ranch owner promised the couple, through a written contract, a job for a certain amount of years and on certain terms. After approximately one year, the ranch owner fired the couple in breach of the contract, and failed to pay them as promised under the contract. The case was tried to a twelve person jury which returned a six figure verdict in favor of the clients. After a contested hearing before a judge, the clients were also subsequently awarded their attorney fees and costs in an amount exceeding $120,000.
_____________ v. ________________. The client owned semi-arid agricultural property and had a water right from a nearby creek. The client had irrigated his land by conveying the water from the creek through an over-ground pipeline across his neighbor’s land for over twenty years. The client’s neighbor subsequently removed the pipeline and threatened the client with trespass if he attempted to come onto the neighbor's land for the purposes of conveying water. After a trial to the court the client was awarded an easement by prescription over the neighbor’s property, thereby preserving the client’s ability to irrigate his land.
_____________ v. _______________. The clients, a husband and wife, bought real property as a vacation and rental home. The seller’s realtor failed to disclose to the clients that the owners of the neighboring property had, only months earlier, asserted a prescriptive easement to the client’s driveway. The clients purchased the property and days later were sued by their neighbors who sought a prescriptive easement in the driveway. Hostetter Law Group obtained a dismissal of the lawsuit and settlement from the realtor for the resulting damages.
_____________ v. _______________. In this case the client was sued by his brothers for over half a million dollars, alleging that he had logged timber in violation of their inheritance rights, and that he had committed fraud, conversion, and trespass. After extensive legal briefing and argument on behalf of the client, the court dismissed the entire lawsuit, and awarded attorney fees to the client.
______________ v. State of Oregon. The client, a young business man, worked in the medical field and started a construction business with a business acquaintance by contributing capital to start the business. The contractor, unbeknownst to the client, subsequently failed to pay insurance premiums and was assessed a penalty by the State of Oregon Contractor's Board for over $100,000. When the contractor could not be found, the State of Oregon Contractor's Board entered an administrative order against the client for the full amount of the penalty. Hostetter Law Group appealed the Administrated Order and the client from any financial responsibility. The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the Order was invalid.
Criminal Defense / Game Defense
State v. ___________ . The client was charged with DUII based in part on his failure of field sobriety tests, including a test utilized by law enforcement called the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test (“HGN”). The client had previously suffered a severe head injury, making the tests performed inaccurate. After motions were filed seeking to suppress the evidence of the tests, the government dismissed all charges.
State v. ___________ . In this case the client had waited years to obtain a Snake River bull elk tag. On the day his hunt was to begin, his tag was confiscated by law enforcement and he was charged with a crime. The client was accused of falsely stating that he was an Oregon resident on his license and tag application. The client, who had a degree in wildlife management, was born and raised in Oregon, owned a home in Oregon, and possessed a current Oregon driver’s license. The client also rented a house in California where he worked as a software salesman traveling throughout the country. After extensive legal argument the trial judge ruled that the definition of resident in the Oregon Big Game Rules was legally wrong. The jury acquitted the client after approximately fifteen minutes of deliberation.
United States v. ____________. This case began when federal and state law enforcement officers served a search warrant on the home of an outfitter and guide. The client was subsequently charged in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington with felonies under the Lacey Act, and other United States statutes. After complicated motions practice the government dismissed the felony charges and the client pled guilty to “petty offenses”. The client received a fine and probation.
State v. _____________. The client was charged with 28 gaming related crimes. Attorneys for Hostetter Law Group negotiated a plea to 5 counts, with the remaining 23 counts dismissed. At a contested sentencing hearing the government vigorously sought jail time, supervised probation, thousands of dollars in restitution and fines, forfeiture of a GPS system and dog collars, and lifetime suspension of all hunting rights. As a result of Hostetter Law Group's representation, the client received no jail time, no restitution, probation which was not supervised, and only a temporary suspension of hunting rights.
State v. _________________. This case began as a dispute between neighbors. The client’s neighbor accused the client of violating a no contact order and running over his dog with a vehicle. After substantial investigation on behalf of the client Hostetter Law Group convinced the government to dismiss all charges against the client, and the government did so. Subsequently, Hostetter Law Group filed an action against the neighbor on behalf of the client for false imprisonment (as a result of false reports to law enforcement) by the neighbor. The client was awarded damages and the attorney fees he had incurred as a result of the litigation.
D. Zachary Hostetter
When Small Technology is a Big Deal: Legal Issues Arising from Business Use of RFID, 2 Shidler J.L.Com. & Tech. 10 (Dec. 16, 2005)
Health Care Sharing Ministries: Scam or Solution?
An Oregon Land Use Parable
Kelly’s Law, Roe v. Wade and Wyoming
Take Your Guns to Church: The Second Amendment and Church Autonomy