Bridge City Fam. Med. Clinic v. Kent & Johnson, LLP
A term can become part of a contract even if someone does not expressly manifest assent to the specific term if the other party could reasonably have understood that term to have been accepted. Contracts can include both what has been stated and what is necessarily to be implied from what has been stated.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Dept. of Human Services v. C. M. K.
Patterns of drug abuse and failures to complete counseling all demonstrate a pattern that is likely to repeat itself and thus a court can find future detriment to children.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
De Zafra v. Farmers Insurance Company
Under ORS 742.504, an insurer must “pay all sums that the insured . . . is legally entitled to recover . . . from the owner or operator of an uninsured vehicle because of bodily injury sustained by the insured caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of an uninsured vehicle,” which does not restrict a claimant to coverage for injury caused only directly by the use of a motor vehicle.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Grants Pass Imaging & Diagnostic Center v. Marchini
The term "member," as used in an LLC Operating Agreement, means only an active or current member of the LLC, not a former member.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
SAIF v. Traner
Under ORS 656.262, when a workers' compensation claimant requests acceptance of a new or omitted medical condition, the insurer must clearly either accept or deny the claim within 60 days, or else the insurer may be required to pay the claimant's attorney fees even if no compensation or penalties are assessed.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Bartlett
Where defendant's acts do not deprive a service provider of a right to payment, under ORS 164.125 there is no theft of property and therefore a robbery has not been committed.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Boyd
Reinitiation of interrogation by a defendant after claiming his right to an attorney constitutes voluntarily and knowingly waiving his Miranda rights.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Ferguson
Pursuant to Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, a police officer may lawfully extend a routine traffic stop if he, given the totality of the circumstances, has a reasonable suspicion of further criminal activity and if his subsequent investigations are reasonably connected to that criminal activity.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Lusareta
Though State v. Mills asserts that, under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, a criminal defendant “has a waivable constitutional right to object to improper venue by way of a pretrial motion”, if the law at the time of trial allows for objection of venue to be raised after the trail has begun, it is permitted to be considered an allowable objection.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Rice
Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, the state has the burden of showing that the time required to acquire a warrant would have sacrificed evidence, thereby creating an exigent circumstance.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Ritz
To justify a warrantless entry into a residence under the doctrine of exigent circumstances, the state has the burden to prove that the time it would have taken to obtain a warrant would have sacrificed evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Schiller-Munneman
Under State v. Davis, defendant’s right to silence is not implicated when defendant is not in custody or under compelling circumstances, and a non-response is not a statement or non-verbal conduct and therefore is not hearsay.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Becker v. Hoodoo Ski Bowl Developers, Inc.
Release of liability provisions may render contracts unconscionable where the factors, outlined in Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., (favoring enforcement of the release) are outweighed by relevant countervailing considerations.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Dept. of Human Services v. D.H.
Evidence is insufficient to support a grant of jurisdiction to the juvenile court when there is no evidence that a child has been harmed, or was at risk of harm.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Fick v. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
An agency is not required to act in a manner directly inconsistent with the purpose of its rules in furtherance of lessening the economic impact of the rules on small businesses, and does not violate ORS 183.540 by declining to do so.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Johnson v. Premo
To prevail on a claim of inadequate assistance of counsel, a petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that legal counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment based on the law at the time counsel acted and that deficient performance had a tendency to affect the outcome of the prosecution.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State of Oregon v. D.C. (a youth)
Based on victim testimony, furtive movements by Defendant to distance himself from stolen property, and Defendant's consent to search the bag, there was a reasonable basis established for probable cause to search a backpack.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Andersen
The automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 9, requires that the officer executing the search must have witnessed the vehicle in motion in connection with the crime.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Bassett
A sentence of bench probation which restricts a defendant's right to travel anywhere a person night be engaged in hunting is impermissibly overbroad.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Mays
In order to find a prosecutor engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, the requisite scienter must be shown; specifically, the facts must show the prosecutor intended to cause a mistrial or reversal, or was indifferent to the possibility.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. McMullin
ORS 136.420 is not violated by out-of-court statements as long as the defendant’s state confrontational rights are met. Further, a law dealing with multiple subjects satisfies Article IV of the Oregon Constitution if it contains a “unifying principle logically connecting all provisions.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Patterson
Custody imposed as a result of a post-prison supervision violation after incarceration for a sentence that has been served is not escape from custody imposed as a result of felony conviction.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Pierce
Under OEC 1002, a live camera feed, for purposes of best evidence, is more akin to a phone conversation than it is a recorded video feed.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Pusztai
Unauthorized use of a vehicle is not a prosecution for theft so a jury instruction regarding the “honest claim of right” defense is not warranted.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Rascon
ORS 136.420 and OEC 403 do not preclude admission of videotaped out-of-court statements or testimony where the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination, satisfying the requirements of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Schnur
Under OEC 404(3), it is not plain error for a trial court to instruct the jury that it may use evidence of a past guilty plea when determining whether a defendant committed actus reus of the charged crime.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Simonov
A conviction under ORS 164.135(1)(a) for unauthorized use of a vehicle may only be reached if the jury finds that defendant knowingly used the vehicle without the consent of its owner.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Spieler
Defendant's confession in order to cooperate with police was not improper. Prosecutors closing remarks concerning defense's inability to admit evidence, as evidence of defendant’s guilt, was improper.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Stone
The fact that police question a person as a suspect in a crime does not inherently create a compelling setting for Oregon constitutional purposes.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Tilly
To establish the forcible compulsion element of first-degree sexual abuse, the State must prove the nexus between the forcible compulsion and the predicate sexual act.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Underhill
A defendant’s statements during a polygraph test must be made voluntarily in order to be admissible.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Valerio
“Accomplice liability is both created by and limited by ORS 161.155” in that criminal liability of an accomplice can be attached to a crime that is intended but the statute does not extend the liability to the natural and probable consequence of the intended crime.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Wels v. Hippe
To establish a prescriptive easement a party must show adverse use of land, meaning that the use of the property is not subordinate to the owner, is or may be wrongful, and is open and notorious.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Godinez v. SAIF
An agency is entitled to deference when it makes a plausible interpretation of its own rule, even when the interpretation is made in the course of applying the rule, so long as it is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule or other source law.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Magno-Humphries, Inc. v. Apex Label & Systems, Inc.
No matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error is assigned as error in the opening brief in accordance with ORAP 5.45(1). To assign error, the appellant must "identify precisely the ruling that is being challenged." The challenged ruling should be quoted or contained in the excerpt of record.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Davis
OEC 412 is intended to protect victims of sexual abuse from having “degrading or embarrassing disclosure of intimate details about [their] private lives” and the prejudicial effect of such details will be weighed against the probative value of the proffered evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Hodges
Under ORS 165.800(1), the state must prove Defendant obtained, transferred, created, uttered or converted to his own use the personal identification of another person with the intent to deceive or defraud, and may use circumstantial evidence and reasonable inference to do so.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Swinney
An officer's expert testimony regarding sexual grooming and abuse is relevant under OEC 401, admissible under OEC 702, and does not constitute an impermissible comment for a victim's credibility.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Sundermier v. State
ORS 238.364 provides a remedy meant to approximate a rebate of income tax paid, and not a windfall in excess of what a member would have received if the benefit had been tax exempt.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Dept. of Human Services v. T.L.
To preserve a claim of inadequate assistance of appointed trial counsel, a parent in a dependency proceeding must first seek to resolve that issue in the juvenile court by moving, under ORS 410B.923(1), for the court to modify or set aside the judgment or order related to the claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Miller v. Miller
If all factors are equal and without a factual showing of detriment to the child, preference under ORS 107.137 must be given to the primary caregiver.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Eastman
To "reasonably suspect," an officer must subjectively believe that the person being stopped has committed a crime, and that belief must be objectively reasonable.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Hazlett
An expert witness who is a pharmacologist and an anesthesiologist is qualified to testify in regards to a defendant's ability to form criminal intent. A contradictory trial court determination on that issue would not prove to be harmless error for charges that require the state to prove that the defendant acted knowingly or intentionally.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Hiner
When proving a sex offender failed to report, under former ORS 181.599(1)(d), the state must prove that a sex offender both left a previous residence and completed a move into a new residence while failing to comply with reporting requirements. The 2009 amendment to this statute (currently numbered ORS 181.812(1)(d)) requires the state to prove only that the sex offender moved from a previous residence and failed to comply with reporting requirements.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Johnson
The Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction when a defendant plead guilty, and the trial court's sentence does not exceed the maximum sentence allowable by law.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Lunetta
When the evidence has a tendency to connect defendant to the charged crimes independent of any accomplice testimony, the accomplice testimony is corroborated.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Nichols
A court can look to the cumulative “specific and articulable facts” as set out in State v. Holdorf where even if the individual “specific and articulable facts” in and of themselves are not to a level of reasonable suspicion, if under the totality of the circumstances the facts indicate a level of reasonable suspicion, then there is sufficient reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Toohey v. Aviation Adventures, LLC
The purpose of ORS 656.027 is to identify "subject workers" whose work-related injuries are covered by Oregon's Workers' Compensation Law, not to identify coworkers who can be sued despite the exclusive-remedy provisions in ORS 656.018. "Subject worker" is direct at types of workers who are eligible for benefits under a parallel federal statutory compensation scheme for work-related injuries.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
West v. Multnomah Cnty.
Under the template test, a dwelling must continue to exist, as a dwelling, at the time the test is applied; to be considered a dwelling, the structure must have the functional necessities that make use as a dwelling possible.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use