Repeal authorization of City Attorney to appeal the judgment in Kelly Jones as Personal Representative for the Estate of Michael Townsend v. City of Portland (Repeal Resolution 37674; Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah Case 22CV05575)
Repeal authorization of City Attorney to appeal the judgment in Kelly Jones as Personal Representative for the Estate of Michael Townsend v. City of Portland (Repeal Resolution 37674; Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah Case 22CV05575)
Derived from official scheduling fields
1 Council session appearance; latest Apr 8, 2025.
Decision readiness
This measures whether decision-relevant information is visible. It does not measure whether the proposal deserves approval.
The requested action could not be determined.
Official text was found in the reviewed record.
The official impact statement includes financial information.
Funding information appears in the impact statement; inspect the source for precision.
No linked attachments were found on the official page.
Implementation language appears in the official text.
Stability requires at least two observed snapshots; the system will update this after another ingestion.
Not found in the reviewed official text.
Not found in the reviewed official text.
Not found in the reviewed official text.
Not found in the reviewed official text.
Not found in the reviewed official text.
Not found in the reviewed official text.
Not found in the reviewed official text.
Documents
Official page textRead
WHEREAS, on September 4, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 37674 authorizing the City Attorney to appeal from the trial court’s judgment in Kelly Jones as Personal Representative for the Estate of Michael Townsend v. City of Portland, Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah Case No. 22CV05575 (“Townsend Case”). WHEREAS, the case involves the use of deadly force by Portland police that led to the death of Michael Townsend on June 24, 2021. WHEREAS, the trial court’s judgment was in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $1,030,661.00, and that verdict is accruing post-judgment interest at the rate of 9% per annum while on appeal. WHEREAS, the issues on appeal comprise the jury instructions provided by the trial court to the jury, including the trial court’s decision not to instruct the jury on an affirmative defense offered by the City and the trial court’s interpretation of ORS 161.242 concerning the justification of the use of deadly force by a police officer. WHEREAS, the vote on Resolution 37674 was split 3-2 in favor of the appeal. WHEREAS, the City Code allows the City Attorney to pursue an appeal “on direction by resolution of the Council or upon written approval of the Mayor.” PCC 3.10.020.I.1.WHEREAS, the current City Council may reevaluate the previous Council’s decision to authorize the appeal in this case. WHEREAS, this City Council finds that the appeal was improvidently authorized by the previous Council and that the appeal should be dismissed by the City Attorney. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Attorney’s authority granted by the previous Council to pursue an appeal in the Townsend Case is hereby repealed, and the authority granted to the City Attorney by Resolution 37674 is no longer in effect as of the date this resolution is adopted by Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Council no longer supports the appeal in the Townsend Case, and if the appeal is to be continued it must be authorized by the Mayor in writing as provided by City Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Council urges the Mayor to decline to authorize the continued appeal in the Townsend Case, and this Council urges the Mayor to direct the City Attorney to immediately dismiss the appeal.
Motions, amendments & votes
Money & effects
Resolution repeals City Attorney authority to pursue appeal of a judgment by the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah. The appeal addresses the application of Oregon’s laws regarding the use of deadly force.
Not applicable.
This resolution involves direction from the Council to the City Attorney’s Office, based on privileged attorney-client communications, so there was no public outreach or input.
During the pendency of the appeal, interest is accruing on the judgment at a rate of 9% per annum under ORS 82.010. Dismissing this appeal would cause the judgment to be paid without further accruing interest during the appeal.
Not applicable.
Implementation & accountability
The reviewed source does not identify a responsible City organization.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Council no longer supports the appeal in the Townsend Case, and if the appeal is to be continued it must be authorized by the Mayor in writing as provided by City Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Council urges the Mayor to decline to authorize the continued appeal in the Townsend Case, and this Council urges the Mayor to direct the City Attorney to immediately dismiss the appeal.
Timeline
- DOCUMENT PUBLISHED
Observed in the official source.
- Council Action
Referred to Councilor