Corkum v. Bi-Mart Corp.
Under ORS 656.005(24)(c), a condition renders the worker more susceptible to an injury when it is a passive contribution (e.g. age, gender, weight) which does not have its own independent, active pathological impact on the body part.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Helms
Trial court plainly erred when it assigned attorney fees to the Defendant without determining whether Defendant was able to pay those fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Luster
ORS 475.319(1) states, in relevant part, that a defendant may raise an affirmative defense to the criminal possession of marijuana if they have been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition within 12 months of their arrest, and have been advised by the person’s attending physician that the medical use of marijuana may mitigate the symptoms.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. McHaffie
Consideration of all the circumstances together can create sufficient specific and articulable facts for an officer to have had reasonable suspicion to make a lawful stop.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Sternberg v. Lechman-Su
A claim for professional negligence may not be dismissed as time-barred where a question of fact remains regarding whether the claim accrued within the time allowed under the statute of limitations.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Weiker v. Douglas County School Dist. No. 4
Under ORS 656.245(1)(a), medical treatment is only compensable when its purpose is to cure a condition caused in material part by a previously accepted, compensable condition.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Eugene
Under ORS 181.854(4) of the Oregon Public Records Law, records of an internal investigation of a police officer's conduct are generally protected from disclosure if that investigation does not result in discipline. A trial court properly denies such requests when it properly balances the competing interests of the public and the public office by favorably presuming disclosure is required.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Department of Human Service v. A. B.
Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), the Court must analyze the totality of the child’s circumstances, including whether she is being cared for by someone other than the parents. DHS must prove a nexus between the parents’ risky conduct and risk of harm to the child when the child is in the care of another in order to exercise jurisdiction over the child.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Johnson v. Johnson
UNDER UTCR 7.020(3), a trial court cannot dismiss an action due to the plaintiff not filing a proposed order for want of prosecution, because no UTCR requires a proposed order be filed.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Barnthouse
Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, the state may not use evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful seizure. An unlawful seizure occurs when there is a significant interference with an individual's possessory interest that is not authorized by warrant or justified by an exception.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Bautista
Under OEC 801(4)(a)(B), it is not an exception to hearsay if the motive to fabricate testimony arose before the prior consistent statement was made.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Cervantes
Testimony cannot be preemptively denied on the sole basis that it may be inadmissible before the trier of fact unless exceptional circumstances arise which would allow for such preemption to occur.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Crisafi
Under ORS 813.215(h), the exception to diversion is valid even if the accused is ineligible for the commercial driver license he or she already has been granted.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Hunt
An appellate court may reverse judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney's fees if the trial court erred in its assessment of defendant's ability to pay those fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Johnson
A criminal defendant may appeal a judgment of conviction based on the sentence for a felony on showing of claim of error if probation was revoked.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Makin
ORS 163.547 does not require proof of presence of children in a vehicle during a specific sale of controlled substances. Defendants have a waiveable pre-trial right to argue improper venue, which is not waived if defendant filed his opening brief before Mills was decided.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Munoz-Juarez
Under ORS 167.067(1) and (2), where a defendant violates multiple statutory provisions or violates one statutory provision but involves multiple victims, there are separately punishable offenses.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Taylor
Under ORS 164.205(2), a “dwelling” is any roofed structure that is mostly enclosed by walls and is regularly or intermittently inhabited by a person who resides in the building at night. Entry into such a building qualifies as entry into a dwelling for purposes of the crime of burglary under ORS 164.225.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Altenhofen and Vanden-Busch
Defendant may be held in contempt for failure to pay child support if able to afford a portion of the ordered amount but fails to pay.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Cirina and Cirina
When dividing property in a divorce proceeding, marital debts are divided evenly between the two parties.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dept. of Human Services v. R.K.
Under ORS 419B.500 and 419B.504, to terminate parental rights a court must find (1) the parent has engaged in conduct or is characterized by a condition that is seriously detrimental to the child, (2) integration of the child into the parent's care is improbable within a reasonable time, and (3) termination is in the best interests of the child. To determine a “serious condition” the court must focus on the detrimental effects of the parent’s conduct or condition and not just the seriousness of the parents conduct. It is child specific.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
English v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.
Under ORS 656.005(7)(a)(A), the compensability of a consequential condition depends on its relationship to the compensable injury, which must be its major contributing cause, and not on the “accepted conditions” from the original injury.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
F. C. L. v. Agustin
The Fourteenth Amendment's right to due process gives defendants protection from overly coercive statements from the trial court about the risks of giving false testimony.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Knappenberger v. Davis-Stanton
ORS 12.150 tolls the statute of limitations for defendants who cannot be served with process in state, and does not implicate the Commerce Clause when a defendant moves out of state for non-commercial reasons.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Madrone and Madrone
ORS 109.243 applies to unmarried same-sex couples who have a child through artificial insemination if the partner of the biological parent consented to the insemination and the couple would have chosen to marry had that choice been available to them.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Neidhart v. Page
Defendant's petition for reconsideration was granted and resulted in the correction of a misstatement of the trial court's award. Nevertheless, Defendant's argument was rejected for being insufficiently developed for review.
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Nordbye v. BRCP/GM Ellington
In an action for declaratory relief for an owner's violation of restrictions in a declaration resulting from participation in the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, a plaintiff's claim becomes moot where the plaintiff is no longer a qualified low-income tenant.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
SAIF v. DeMarco
Under ORS 656.005(7)(a)(A), a new/omitted condition is compensable if the major contributing cause of that consequential condition is a compensable injury.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
SAIF v. Durant
Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), a determination that a workplace injury is a consequential condition does not violate the Last Injurious Exposure Rule if the prior condition was determined both compensable and the major contributing cause of the current condition.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Barker
Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, a warrantless search must be supported by probable cause, which is comprised of two components: the subjective believe of the officer that a crime was committed, and that belief must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Combest
Police department's investigation of criminal activity on a public file sharing network not considered a "search" which would trigger a privacy interest on the behalf of a user of the network.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Craine
Under OEC 401, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probably or less probable than without the evidence. Curative admissibility doctrine provides that when one party offers inadmissible evidence, which is received, the opponent may then offer similar facts whose only claim to admission is that they negate or explain the prior inadmissible evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Epps
Under ORS 813.011, a defendant convicted of DUII who has been previously convicted of DUII at least twice in the prior 10 years may not have a suspended or reduced sentence from the mandatory 90-day incarceration.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Jaimes-Pineda
Under OEC 401, a trail court may exercise its discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the jury or complicating the trial. Appellate courts review a trial court’s decision to exclude evidence for abuse of discretion.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Kim
Under Article I, Section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, the right to effective counsel at a criminal trial may only be waived if the record reflects that the defendant “voluntarily and intelligently” waived his right to an attorney.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Ross
The Court may exercise plain error review of unpreserved issues on appeal when they are errors of law, which are not reasonably in dispute, and the error is apparent in the record. The Court may decline to use its discretion to review plain errors when the errors were harmless.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Vukanovich v. Kine
When the trial court grants JNOV, the proper procedural course, if the appellate court reverses the JNOV, is to remand to the trail court to determine whether there is additional evidence to support the alleged claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Vukasin v. Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation
ORS 656.245(1)(a) allows compensation for medical services that are causally related to a compensable workplace injury. This does not include services for accepted conditions that can be shown to have been resolved or cured and occurred again later, unrelated to a workplace injury.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Bernard v. S.B., Inc.
Under ORS 653.295(1)(a)(A), a noncompetition agreement that is not presented to an employee at least two weeks prior to the start of employment is voidable, and may be enforced by a court unless a party takes steps to void the agreement.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
DeHarpport v. W.E.J.
Under ORS 124.005 et seq., whether a defendant had probable cause to initiate a proceeding is a question for a court only if the facts are undisputed.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Dept. of Human Services v. A.S.-M.
In a hearing for the termination of parental rights, a guardian ad litem deemed to have been inappropriately appointed for a parent deprives the parent of the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. This runs afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution and creates a fundamentally unfair proceeding, despite any evidence tending to show the unfitness of the parent.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Eicks v. Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
Under ORS 342.175(1)(b) and OAR 584-020-0035(3)(a), an application for a school counseling and psychologist license may only be denied for “gross neglect of duty” when there is a nexus between the applicant's questioned conduct and professional responsibilities.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Ardizzone
Under OEC 404(3), a trial court does not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of past criminal convictions offered to prove a criminal defendant's intent, so long as the trial court properly balances the relevance and prejudicial impact of the evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Brock
The “automobile exception” allows an officers to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle provided that the vehicle is (1) mobile at the time it is first encountered by police and (2) there is probable cause for the search. Probable cause to search a vehicle is based on an officer's subjective belief that evidence of the crime exists, and that belief must also be objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Shapiro
Under ORS 164.215 and ORS 164.043, an emergency room waiting area is not considered "open to the public" if a security guard is present.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Williams
In determining the validity of a search warrant on appeal, a court may only consider the facts alleged in the affidavit in support of the warrant. The alleged facts must establish a probability that it is more likely than not evidence will be found at the place to be searched.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Stevenson v. Board of Parole
Mastriano v. Board of Parole held that an order which denies the review or reconsideration of a previous order is not considered a final order subject to judicial review. Additionally, a petition which is substantively different, but, in effect, duplicates the request made in a previous petition that was denied, is not subject to judicial review.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision