Department of Human Services v. M. A. H.
Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), dependency jurisdiction is only granted when there is a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child at the time of the jurisdiction hearing.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dosanjh v. Namaste Indian Restaurant, LLC
Parties in civil actions are entitled to a jury instruction on their theory of the case if the requested instruction correctly states the law, is based on the pleadings, and is supported by the evidence. An error at the trial court is only grounds for reversal if it substantially affects the rights of a party such that when the instruction is considered in the totality of the evidence and the parties’ theories of the case, there is some likelihood that the jury reached a legally erroneous result.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Hadley v. Extreme Technologies, Inc.
Ambiguities in contract provisions are questions of law, and the trial court erred in this breach of contract case when it instructed the jury that it was the jury's job to determine the meaning of an ambiguous contract provision.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Miller v. Shenk
Under 28.110, all necessary parties must be joined to an action both to protect interested parties and the certainty of the judgment.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Hayes
A facts-based argument is not grounds for reversal because when there is evidence from which the facts could be decided in more than one way, the Court is required to presume that the trial court decided the facts in a manner consistent with its ultimate conclusion.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Ragibov
Under OEC 803(4), hearsay statements contained in medical records are admissible in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted if three requirements are met: (1) the statement must be made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment; (2) the statement must describe medical history, symptoms, pain or sensations, or the cause or eternal source of the injury; and (3) the statement must be reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
U.S. Bank v. Pohrman
To determine whether an employee's injury sustained during a paid break is compensable, the Worker's Compensation Board must first determine whether the employee was injured during the scope of employment, and then must determine whether employee was on a "personal mission" or if the personal comfort doctrine applies.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Dept. of Human Services v. M.E.M.
A trial court errs by entering a default judgment against a mother in a juvenile dependency case when that mother fails to appear in person at the dependency hearing but appears over the phone.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Fossen v. Clackamas County
When a plaintiff brings claims of false arrest and false imprisonment, the false imprisonment claim will not be dismissed along with the false arrest claim where the false imprisonment claim arises after a valid arrest.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
McManus v. Auchincloss
The public policy underlying ORS 659.550 is "to encourage all employees with a good-faith belief that their employer had committed a crime involving child abuse to report that belief to law enforcement," even if the employee is not required by law to report such information.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Mitchell and Mitchell
Lower court in marriage dissolution hearing abused its discretion by not considering Husband's agreement to pay for children's college education when awarding monthly spousal maintenance, and by not providing an explanation for the chosen amount of required life insurance policy.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Moyer and Moyer
A life insurance obligation must be commensurate with the support award it secures, and so when the support award is reduced or eliminated the life insurance obligation must be appropriately adjusted.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Mullen v. Meredith Corp.
Oregon's Anti-SLAPP statute, ORS 31.150, gives defendants ground to strike a civil claim when their conduct was in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or issue of public interest, even if that conduct is not necessary to the exercise of free speech.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Myers v. Brockamp
Under ORS 138.640(1), to be legally sufficient, a judgment denying post-conviction relief must, at a minimum, follow the three-prong test elicited in Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672, 676 (2010) with respect to each claim. Failure to do so compels a remand without reaching the merits of petitioner's claim for relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Anton
Evidence is properly suppressed when it is obtained through an unlawful seizure. A seizure occurs when an officer announces that a defendant's fishing tags will be inspected, that seizure is unlawful if it is not supported by reasonable suspicion.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Bradford
When a defendant raises self-defense at a trial alleging assault and harassment, it is improper to give the jury a defense of premises instruction.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Davidson
Two consecutive, presumptive "true life" sentences imposed under ORS 137.719(1) against a recidivist defendant violates Article I, Section 16 of the Oregon Constitution, when that defendant has five convictions of public indecency for public masturbation without any sexually violent behavior or conduct.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Ene
Evidence is properly suppressed when it is obtained through an unlawful seizure. A seizure occurs when an officer announces that a defendant's fishing tags will be inspected, that seizure is unlawful if it is not supported by reasonable suspicion.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Lamoreaux
Under Article 9 Section 1 of the Oregon State Constitution, the scope of a lawful, consented to search is determined by examining two factors; (1) the specific words used by the officer in requesting the search, and (2) whether a reasonable person in Defendant’s shoes would have understood that the officer intended to search for specific items. The second factor is satisfied when the officer is aware that Defendant is on probation and Defendant knows that items related to same crime as on probation for will turn up in a search.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. lopez-lopez
Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution subjecting a person to a breath test is a search and seizure that requires a warrant or an exception. Consent is an exception. In assessing voluntariness, you examine the totality of the circumstances to determine if a defendant’s consent was the of the defendant’s free will or was the result of express or implied coercion.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Paskar
It is a violation of Article I section 9 of the Oregon Constitution to obtain evidence through the exploitation of an unlawful search. Additionally, reasonable suspicion in regards to one crime does not provide officers with an excuse to extend a stop and conduct an investigation into a separate crime.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Rhee
Under Oregon’s merger statute, ORS 161.067(1), in order to determine whether statutory provisions require “proof of an element that the others do not,” a court should examine only the statutory elements of each offense, not the factual circumstances alleged in the indictment. When a statute contains alternative forms of a single crime, a court should look to the indictment to determine which form is charged for merger analysis.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Trujillo
Expert testimony that "retrograde extrapolation" is a practice that is accepted in the field of forensic science is sufficient to admit evidence of "retrograde extrapolation" in DUII cases.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Delta Property Co., LLC v. Lane County
Under ORS 197.829, the Land Use Appeals Board must give deference to a county’s plausible interpretation of its land use code, and must consider whether any exceptions may apply.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Hamlin v. Hamlin
A trial court may use extrinsic evidence when reforming a decedent’s will when both parties seek reformation before the court, and each party offers a different intention for the will’s reformation.
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
Ray Klein, Inc. v. Wader
When a trial court dismisses a claim upon a plaintiff's request, the defendant has a right to continue with a counterclaim under ORCP 54A(2). If the trial court has the discretion to dismiss the counterclaim as well, it must create a sufficient record to reflect its discretionary decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
S. St. Helens, LLC v. City of St. Helens
Under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C), LUBA may only reverse a local government’s land use decision if the decision was based on facts that are not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record. If a reasonable person could make the disputed finding based on the entirety of the record, it is supported by substantial evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Hunt
When at an arraignment where the court has impermissibly adjudged a defendant's waiver of counsel, in which the defendant proceeds into a community service program under terms that she does not fully comprehend, the error is not harmless and a new arraignment must be provided for the defendant with the community service option still available to her.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Johnson
Trial court ordering payment of court-appointed attorney fees without determining Defendant's ability to pay such fees was plain error.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Kimmons
Pursuant to Rodgers/Kirkeby, “a stop is unlawfully extended, effectuating an unconstitutional seizure, where 'an officer, without letting the person know expressly or by implication that he or she is free to leave, detains the person beyond the time reasonably required to investigate the initial basis for the stop and to issue a citation, without the requisite reasonable suspicion.'”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Price
Under ORS 137.106(5), a judge must grant a restitution hearing if the "defendant objects to the imposition, amount or distribution of the restitution."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. R.D.S.
A trial court in a civil commitment proceeding must advise the allegedly mentally ill person directly regarding the rights guaranteed by ORS 4216.100. When the court fails to do this, it is plain error and the Court can hear the issue despite a failure to preserve.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Vargas
Under ORS 138.222(2)(a), the appellate court is only precluded from reviewing challenges to convictions that address the length of the sentence when the sentence is within its presumptive range.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Williams
Trial court plainly erred when it failed to determine whether Defendant was capable of paying attorney's fees before imposing fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Tseng v. Tseng
Under ORS 130.710(1), after a settlor’s death, a trustee of a revocable trust must provide information about the administration of the trust during the settlor’s lifetime to qualified beneficiaries of the trust such that those beneficiaries have the material facts necessary to protect their interests.
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
Barbera v. State of Oregon
Misrepresentation by an attorney regarding post-conviction time-lines does not allow for an excuse in timely filing of petitions for post-conviction relief. Moreover, petitions for post-conviction relief do not require a notary signature.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Bova v. City of Medford
Under ORS 243.303(2), local governments are obligated to provide some health insurance to both current and retired employees, but may be relieved from such obligation to retired employees if the local government can show that providing healthcare insurance is unduly burdensome to the city because of cost or other circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Doyle v. City of Medford
ORS 243.303(2) does not create a tort-based private right of action, but an adversely-affected retired local government employee may seek remedy through the Declaratory Judgments Act, as well as supplemental relief including economic damages for the cost of obtaining substitute health insurance.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Gram and Gram
On a motion to clarify a dissolution judgment, a trial court is permitted to interpret ambiguous portions of a dissolution judgment. A provision in a judgment is ambiguous if it is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. A trial court may not modify the property provisions of the judgment under the guise of interpreting them. A trial court will have modified the judgment if additional terms or obligations are added.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Haynes v. Board of Parole
ORS 183.400 authorizes only facial challenges to agency rules, and does not allow constitutional challenges in particular circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Johnson v. Premo
A party to a judgment by the Court of Appeals may petition to modify the written opinion to correct factual errors. If the petition is correct, the Court may allow the modification.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
K.M.V. v. Williams
Under ORS 30.866, issuance of a stalking protective order requires at least two contacts that cause both subjective and objective reasonable alarm or coercion that occur within two years of filing the petition for the order.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
Kiltow v. SAIF
A decision by the Workers' Compensation Appellate Review Unit that an insurer prematurely closed a claim does not have a preclusive effect on the Court of Appeals or the Workers' Compensation Board. Furthermore, an insurer does not act unlawfully by removing a condition from a claim if it is determined that the condition was never part of the compensable injury.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Lunsford v. NCH Corporation
ORS 30.905(3)(b) does not violate the remedy clause because wrongful death actions were not recognized by the common law in 1875.
Area(s) of Law:- Elder Law
McKeachie v. Coursey
Under 138.640, a judgment granting or denying post-conviction relief must contain (1) identification of claims for relief the court considered and separate rulings on each claim; (2) declaration for each claim whether denial is based on petitioner's failure to utilize or follow available state procedures or failure to establish merits of his claim; and (3) apparent legal bases for denial of relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Piazza v. Kellim
Under Oregon tort law, a plaintiff must plead and prove foreseeability of harm from third-party criminal action by showing (1) the defendant’s conduct caused a foreseeable risk; (2) the risk was to an interest of a kind that the law protects against negligent invasion; (3) the defendant’s conduct was unreasonable considering the risk; (4) the conduct caused the plaintiff’s harm; and (5) the plaintiff was within the class of persons and the harm was within the general type of potential injuries that made the defendant’s conduct negligent.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Battles
A trial court may reinstate an award of attorney fees following remand from an appeal, where Defendant did not contest them in the original appeal and offered no evidence the original award of the fees was plain error.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Gibbons
Under Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution, a police officer's decision to randomly "run" the plates of a car is constitutional if that officer's decision resulted from a confluence of training, time, and opportunity, and that officer would have "run" the plates from any other passing driver.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Heater
Analysis for admissibility of evidence obtained after illegal police activity has been extended by recent decisions to include not only temporal proximity and mitigating circumstances, but also an analysis of the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the illegal conduct and its purpose and flagrancy.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Love
Under the statute governing disorderly conduct, ORS 166.025, "public" refers to something that affects "the people as an organized community" or "the people as a whole," not a "public place."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. M.S.P.
Under ORS 426.130, when the evidence is legally insufficient that a person is a danger to himself, he may not be committed as a person with mental illness.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. McRae
Trial court's denial to admit evidence of police officer's prior inconsistent statement not a grave enough error to warrant reversal of judgement if the difference in statements is not "qualitatively different" enough to warrant reversal.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Navickas
Evaluating a “lawful order” pertaining to ORS 162.247(1)(b) should be done independently of the circumstances giving rise to the order given. The standard is whether a rational trier of fact could find that the order was given by one who had the authority to give such order and the lawfulness of said order could be found in substantive law.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Velazquez-Valleo
A judgment ordering a defendant to pay attorney fees may be reversed on appeal where circumstances of the defendant's case render him or her unable to pay court-ordered attorney fees, even if the error was unpreserved below.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Williams
Whether an encounter between a citizen and an officer qualifies as a stop is an issue of fact, determined by the totality of the circumstances. A citizen-officer encounter constitutes a stop when the officer’s words and/or actions would cause a reasonable person to believe that he is not free to end the encounter or go about his daily affairs until the officer indicates he is free to do so or issues a citation.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law