Oregon Court of Appeals

2017

January 10 summaries

Dept. of Human Services v. C.L.H

In determining whether DHS failed to make reasonable efforts to make reunification possible, the juvenile court must engage in a cost-benefit analysis, considering both the burdens on the state in providing that service and the benefit that might reasonably be expected to flow from that service. DHS may not withhold a potentially beneficial service to an incarcerated parent simply because, in DHS’s estimation, reunification with the child is ultimately unlikely even if the parent successfully engages in the services and programs that DHS provides.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. S. M. H.

Under ORS 419B417(2)(a) the juvenile court is authorized to change the plan from reunification only if DHS proves that (1) it made reasonable efforts to make it possible for the child to be reunified with his or her parent and (2) notwithstanding those efforts, the parent’s progress was insufficient to make reunification possible.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Rehfeld v. Sedgewick Claims Management Servs.

A workers' compensation claimant employed by an employer whose pay scheme does not comply with ORS chapter 656 is entitled to her "assumed wage" as compensation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Lien/Wilverding

State v. Howard/Dawson, 204 Or App 438 (2006) established that defendants have no possessory interest after the sanitation company picks up the garbage can, but defendants do have a possessory interest before the sanitation company collects the defendants’ garbage can. It does not conclude that a slight deviation from an ordinary collection routine is constitutionally significant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Butler Family LP v. Butler Brothers, LLC 

Under Huff v. Duncan, the use of the word “successors” in a lease agreement is not required to evidence an intention that a covenant in the original agreement run with the land; a reference to “assigns” is sufficient to evidence that intention.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Smith v. DCBS

A memorandum informing a person of existing law acts as an announcement, not a rule, under the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act, thus, not eligible for judicial review under ORS 183.400.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Smith v. Dept. of Corrections

Under ORS 183.310(9)(f), rules of the conduct of inmates are unreviewable by appellate courts; OAR 291-130-0016(3) is such a rule and therefore is unreviewable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Haines

Article 1, section 11, states that the constitutional right to counsel may be waived but the waiver must be voluntarily and knowingly made. To knowingly waive the right to counsel, a defendant must be aware of the right to counsel and also understand the risk inherent in self-representation. It is up to the court to determine whether the waiver of counsel is made knowingly.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Marinez-Garcia

Under the Fifth Amendment, a trial court may not force a defendant to testify, on pain of contempt, as to his true identity, even when the true identity is unknown to the State and trial court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Rives

A victim's identification satisfies the personal knowledge requirement of OEC 602 if a reasonable factfinder could find that the identification was more likely based on the victim's own perceptions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

February 26 summaries

Bergstrom v. Assoc. for Women’s Health of So. Ore.

Expert testimony does not have to be offered to prove a specific complaint allegation in order to be relevant under OEC 401.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Madden

Under State v. Bates, 304 Or 519 (1987), a seizure under the officer safety warrant exception must be supported by reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that Defendant posed an immediate threat of serious physical injury to the officer or to others then present.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Runnels

Trial courts must consider whether Defendant is or may be able to pay attorney fees before imposing them.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Behrle v. Taylor

ORS 138.650(1) does not grant either party an additional 10 days after the 30-day period has expired to file notice of cross-appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Hernandez-Nolt v. Washington County

Under the theory of wrongful discharge, employers may incur tort liability for discharging an employee for "fulfilling some important public duty."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. L.R.

Under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C), threats alone are insufficient to establish that a person is a danger to others due to a mental disorder.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Bell v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Under ORS 144.228(1)(b), “the condition which made the prisoner dangerous is absent or in remission” when a prisoner no longer suffers from or presents the symptoms of a mental disorder that satisfies the terms of the dangerous-offender statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Big River Construction, Inc. v. City of Tillamook

Under ORS 20.220(3)(a), “when an appeal is taken from a general judgment . . . to which an award of attorney fees or costs and disbursements relate, . . . if the appellate court reverses the general judgment, the award of attorney fees or costs and disbursements shall be deemed reversed."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Dept. of Human Services v. S. E. K. H./J. K. H.

Under ORS 419B.337, juvenile courts have the authority to review placement decisions made by the Department of Human Services, but cannot compel the department to place children in specific living arrangements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Duffour v. Portland Community College

Under ORS 183.482(7), the Court reviews to determine whether “fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action may have been impaired by a material error in procedure.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Jones v. Bd. of Parole

Under ORS 144.125, the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision may hold a prisoner past the prisoner's release date only if (1) petitioner has a history of serious misconduct during confinement; (2) petitioner has a PSED that constitutes a danger to the community; or (3) the board deems the petitioner’s release plan to be inadequate.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

King v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

When the Parole Board making findings not supported by sufficient evidence, the decision must be remanded for reconsideration absent the erroneous factual findings.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Kuhn v. Dept. of Human Services

A service that is provided with the sole objective of assisting a disabled person to function comparably to a nondisabled person qualifies as a social benefit within the meaning of OAR 411-330-0020(81), even if someone else incidentally benefits from the service.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Niday

Under the Uniform Commercial Code “the current holder of a promissory note, indorsed in a blank, gives [the current holder] the right to enforce the note.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. Stuart

Under ORS 163.125, a jury's determination of the reckless mental state is "subjective and will rarely be susceptible to direct proof; it often must be inferred (or not) from objective facts."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Brenner v. Nooth

In a post-conviction relief proceeding, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be based on evidence that would have been admissible at the defendant’s criminal trial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Chavez v. State of Oregon

The ability of a petitioner to prevail on a claim for post-conviction relief, based on new constitutional principles, depends on the retroactivity of the federal constitutional principle at work.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Farmer v. Premo

Under the Oregon Constitution, petitioners who seek “post-conviction relief stemming from a claim of inadequate assistance of appellate counsel for failing to assert a claimed error must establish that a competent appellate counsel would have asserted the claim” in order to establish deficient performance.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Gaylord v. DMV

Evidence of a urinalysis taken in conjunction with a DUII arrest is relevant for the purpose of determining whether a driver's license should be suspended.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Hooton, Wold & Okrent, LLP v. Employment Dept.

Under ORS 657.471(9), simultaneous employment is not required and the reason for eligibility is not limited to the period of time immediately preceding the application for benefits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Roadhouse v. Employment Dept.

The standard of review for reviewing the decisions of the Employment Appeals Board is substantial evidence, substantial reason, and errors of law. Franklin v. Employment Dept., 254 Or App 656, 657 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Blackburn

Under ORS 33.096, a court may summarily impose a sanction upon a person who commits contempt of court "in the immediate view and presence of the court," including a person present via telephone.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Bliss

The Oregon automobile exception applies to any lawful stop of a moving vehicle if an officer develops probable cause to search for contraband or evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Gonzalez-Sanchez

A trial court's consideration of evidence under 403 balancing is sufficient where the record indicates the court's "conscious process of balancing the costs of the evidence against its benefits."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Silver

Under ORS 138.222(5)(b), failure to merge multiple counts into a single guilty verdict requires the reversal of a judgment of conviction which triggers an automatic remand for resentencing on all affirmed counts. State v. Skaggs, 275 Or App 557, 560-61, 364 P.3d 355 (2015), rev den, 359 Or 667 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Wilson

The officer safety doctrine is supported by an officer’s “reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that an individual ‘might pose an immediate threat of serious physical injury’ to officers or others” State. Bates, 304 Or 519, 524-25 (1987).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

March 50 summaries

Brockway v. Allstate Property and Casualty Ins. Co.

Under ORS 742.056, an insurance company’s investigation of a loss or claim under an insurance policy does not estop the insurance company from asserting any provision of the policy or defense of the insurer arising from the policy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Dept. of Human Services v. A.F.

To prevail against parents’ motion to dismiss jurisdiction, DHS is required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time of the hearing: (1) the facts upon which jurisdiction was based continue, (2) those facts continue to expose the child to a risk of serious loss or injury, and (3) the risk will likely be realized should the court terminate the wardship and dismiss jurisdiction. Dept. of Human Services v. T. L., 279 Or App 673, 678, 379 P3d 741 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Heathman Hotel v. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant 

A contract term is ambiguous if, when examined in the context of the contract as a whole, including the circumstances under which the contract was formed, it is susceptible to more than one plausible interpretation. Milne v. Milne Construction Co., 207 Or App 382, 388, 142 P3d 475 (2006).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Hobbs v. Harrington

ORS 116.013 gives a probate court the discretionary authority to make a partial distribution “prior to final settlement and distribution.” A probate court can issue a judgment of final distribution without entertaining outstanding petitions for partial distribution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trusts and Estates

Jackson v. Franke

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the test for determining whether a petitioner has been denied adequate assistance of counsel is two-pronged: (1) the petitioner must show that his or her counsel performed inadequately; (2) the petitioner must demonstrate that he or she was prejudiced because of counsel’s error. Pereida-Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or 654, 661-62, 342 P3d 70 (2015); Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 686 (1984).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Johnson v. J.G. Wentworth Originations, Inc.

Under California law, “where no interested parties object to the transfer of structured settlement payment rights,” the anti-assignment provision in the structured settlement agreement “do not bar” a court-approved transfer of structured settlement payments.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Kay v. Employment Dept.

When determining whether a claimant for unemployment benefits had a reasonable alternative to leaving work, the EAB must decide whether that reasonable alternative existed “at the time she left work.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Lizarraga-Regalado v. Premo

Counsel's failure to object to the “natural and probable consequences” uniform jury instruction, similar to State v. Lopez-Minjarez, constitutes a failure to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Robinson v. DeFazio

Under ORS 31.152(3), “[A] court’s discretionary authority to reduce requested attorney fees that are otherwise reasonable, . . . is subject to principled constraints. In particular, there must be a rational nexus between [an ORS 20.075] factor invoked, its underlying circumstances, and the amount of the reduction.” Grisby v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 233 Or App 210, 222, 225 P3d 101 (2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Berger

"ORS 137.750 requires a sentencing court to order that a defendant may be considered for release, leave and certain sentencing programs for which the defendant is otherwise eligible unless the court makes a finding on the record that substantial and compelling reasons exist that warrant a contrary result."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. J.T.C.

Under ORS 426.005(1)(e)(A), proving that a person is a “danger to others” due to mental illness requires proof of the likelihood of future violence based on more than a single, isolated incident.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Valdez

When the Court relies on misunderstandings of facts in deciding a case, the Court may otherwise adhere to its previous ruling if additional facts support its ultimate holding.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Watts

If a defendant was not given a reasonable opportunity to consent to a search, such as when the defendant is told that a search will inevitable occur, then it may be a warrantless search.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Thomas v. Wasco County

Under ORS 433.745 and ORS 433.750, an applicant for an outdoor-mass-gathering permit is not required to demonstrate compliance with land use laws. Those statutes do not require a county to consider an applicant’s compliance with land use laws in evaluating an application for an outdoor-mass-gathering.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Tiner v. Premo

A criminal defendant is entitled to post-conviction relief if the State withholds material evidence that is favorable to the defendant. Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

West Hills Dev. Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc.

Under ORS 742.061(1), insureds, but not self-insurers, are entitled to attorney's fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Dept. of Human Services v. M.A.H

Under ORS 419B.476(2)(a), DHS makes "reasonable efforts" if it gives a parent a fair opportunity to demonstrate the ability to adjust his or her behavior and act as a "minimally adequate" parent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Diesel v. Jackson County

A county's prohibition of marijuana production on lands zoned rural residential may not be inconsistent with the county’s comprehensive plan.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Kaste v. Land O'Lakes Purina Feed, LLC 

When a term in a contract is susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations, it is ambiguous, and it cannot be a basis on which to grant a directed verdict using one interpretation. 

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Portland Columbia Symphony v. Employment Dept.

For the purposes of ORS 670.600(3)(d), whether an individual contributed a “significant investment” is a factor in determining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor; if the individual has made a “significant investment” in the business in which the individual works, the factor weighs in favor of determining the individual is an independent contractor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Providence Health System Oregon v. Walker

Under ORS 656.268(5)(b) (2009), at the time of the request for a claim closure, a claimant’s refusal to attend an independent medical examination (IME), provides an employer with legitimate doubt as to its obligation to close the claim. 

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Smith v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Under 144.228(2), "[f]or a parole consideration hearing, the board shall cause to be brought before it and consider all information regarding such person," including the psychiatrist's written report.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

State v. Bement

Under OEC 803(3) evidence offered to show state of mind is excepted from the prohibition on hearsay.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Clark

Scientific testimony is admissible if it is (1) relevant under OEC 401; (2) of some assistance to the trier of fact under OEC 702; and (3) its probative value is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or jury confusion under OEC 403.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Kennedy

The “officer safety” exception allows officers to take reasonable steps to protect themselves or others if there is a reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that the citizen may pose an immediate threat of serious physical injury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Harbert v. Franke

Under Article I, Section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, aside from “extraordinary circumstances,” such as when the error is apparent on the face of the record, “appellate counsel’s failure to raise unpreserved matters does not, and cannot, constitute inadequate assistance.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

J.V.-B. v. Burns

Under FAPA, an order continuing a restraining order must be supported by legally sufficient evidence that the subject of the order presented a "credible threat" to the physical safety of the protected person(s).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Abuse Prevention Act

Kastle v. Salem Hospital

When faced with a statute of limitations defense, “a complaint does not have to show that the action is timely; it suffices if the complaint does not reveal on its face that the action is not timely.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Byam

Under ORS 137.123(5)(a), the imposition of consecutive sentences is precluded where, in the absence of explicit evidence of multiple intents, the same act was undertaken to achieve the same end and concurrently violated multiple criminal statutes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. V.T.

Under ORS 426.307(6), continued involuntary civil commitment is appropriate if there is clear and convincing evidence of a particularized and highly probable threat to a person's safety.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Welsh v. Taylor

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, trial counsel is inadequate where "counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and [the] petitioner suffered prejudice as a result." Trujilo v. Maass, 312 Or 431 (1991); ORS 138.620(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Western Prop. Holdings v. Aequitas Capital Management

The duty of good faith cannot “be construed in a way that changes or inserts terms into a contract. Instead, [t]he law imposes a duty of good faith and fair dealing in contracts to facilitate performance and enforcement in a manner that is consistent with the terms of the contract.” Safeco Ins. Co. v. Masood, 264 Or App 173, 178 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

State v. Garcia

Under ORS 132.550(7), an indictment must contain a statement of the acts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Vantassel v. SAIF

Under ORS 656.005(24)(c), a condition merely renders a worker more susceptible to injury if the condition increased the likelihood that the affected body part would be injured by some other action or process but did not actively contribute to damaging the body part.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Augustus v. Board of Nursing

"In general, to preserve a contention for appeal or judicial review, a party must provide the lower court or agency with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court or agency is able to consider the point and avoid committing error." Becklin v. Board of Examiners for Engineering, 195 Or App 186, 199- 200 (2004).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Corona v. Amsberry

Under ORS 138.525(3), “if a post-conviction court dismisses a petition as meritless and, simultaneously, rules that the post-conviction petition can be dismissed for additional, independent reasons, then ORS 138.525(3) precludes any appeal from that judgment.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Dept. of Human Services v. C. M.

For the purposes of establishing jurisdiction, a child can sleep through episodes of domestic violence and still be "exposed" to it if no one shields or protects the child from the activity unfolding around it.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

DeWolf v. Mt. Hood Ski Bowl, LLC

Under ORCP 64(B)(2), a new trial may be granted for misconduct of the prevailing party if that misconduct materially affected the substantial rights of the moving party. D.C. Thompson and Co. v. Hauge, 300 Or 651 (1986). 

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Masood v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Oregon

Under ORS 20.310(2), costs and disbursement on appeal include “the transcript of testimony or other proceedings, when necessarily forming part of the record on appeal.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Meier v. Salem-Keizer School Dist.

Under ORS 419B.010(1), the “reasonable cause” standard that triggers a mandatory reporter’s obligation to report child abuse is equivalent to a “reasonable suspicion,” based on inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Alonso

Compensatory fines cannot be imposed if the victim would not have a remedy in a civil action based on the crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Klingler

An affidavit to a search warrant is sufficient where it would support “a neutral and detached” magistrate’s conclusion “that there was probable cause to believe that a search . . . would reveal evidence of” a crime. State v. Heyne/Yunke, 270 Or. App. 601, 605 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Washington

Under Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, an officer’s suspicion is objectively reasonable if the officer is able to “identify specific and articulable facts that produce reasonable suspicion, based on the officer’s experience, that criminal activity is afoot." State v. Mitchele, 240 Or App 86, 91, 251 P3d 760 (2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Stop the Dump v. Yamhill County

ORS 215.296(1), as interpreted in Von Lubken v. Hood River County, 118 Or App 246, 250- 51 (1993), only required a cumulative impacts inquiry on a single farm, not multiple farms.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Dept. of Human Services v. M. S.

The party who proposes a change in the permanency plan from reunification to adoption has the burden to prove that the child "could not be returned to [parent] within a reasonable time." Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 283 Or App 367, 394 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Robbins v. City of Medford

Under ORS 30.265(6)(c), a governmental actor is entitled to discretionary immunity for allegedly negligent conduct only if: (1) the conduct is the product of a decision; (2) the decision must be a policy decision; (3) the decision must have been made by a governmental decision-maker with authority to make that type of policy decision.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Jenkins

Under Romero, a Defendant must have affidavit supporting a request for DNA testing, and a prima facie showing of actual innocence “necessarily requires the defendant to establish a logical relationship between the presumed exculpatory DNA results and the defendant’s theory of defense in the context of the underlying trial proceedings, as will be required for a later showing of actual innocence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Tapp

Under Article I, section 9, an officer has reasonable suspicion to extend a stop for investigatory purposes if the officer suspects the person has committed or was about to commit a specific crime. State v Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Woods

In order to award restitution, there must have been "(1) criminal activities, (2) [economic] damages, and (3) a causal relationship between the two." State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App 420 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Stoltz v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.

Under ORS 656.236(a)(1), a claim disposition agreement (CDA) waives or resolves all matters that could arise out of a claim, not just those currently known to arise out of the claim,with the exception of medical services, “unless those rights are expressly reserved.” Rash v. McKinstry Co., 331 Or 665, 20 P3d 197 (2001).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

April 36 summaries

Coos Waterkeeper v. Port of Coos Bay

Use of the word “project” in ORS 196.825(1) does not require the Department of State Lands to consider post-construction operational effects of a proposed development when determining whether to issue a fill/removal permit in conjunction with that development.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

State v. Rodriguez

In order to award restitution damages under ORS 137.106, the Court must determine the victim’s injuries reasonably foreseeable. State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 368 P3d 446 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Wright

Under OAR 213-008-0002(1)(b), it is plain error for a trial court to rely on departure factors which “were already captured as elements of the offense or in a consecutive sentence.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Clark v. Nooth

A determination that the “defendant poses a security concern is necessary before a court requires a defendant to appear in court wearing a restraint, even if the restraint is not visible to the jury.” Sproule v. Coursey, 276 Or App 417, 422, rev den, 359 Or 777 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Cunio v. Premo

Under ORS 138.550, a petitioner may not revive a claim for relief on the same grounds raised in an earlier petition, even if new case law would make the argument successful.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Henley v. Employment Dept.

Under ORS 657.176(2)(c), "good cause" for voluntarily leaving work is "such that a reasonable and prudent person of normal sensitivity, exercising ordinary common sense, would leave work."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Siefken v. Premo

Under Article 1, Section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, to prove prejudice a petitioner must demonstrate his or her trial counsel’s deficient performance "had a tendency to affect the result of the prosecution.’” Green v. Franke, 357 Or 301, 321 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Aguilar-Ramos

Under ORS 137.106(1)(a), inattentiveness to the passage of time on the part of a prosecutor does not constitute good cause to impose restitution beyond the 90-day deadline. State v. Martinez, 246 Or. App. 383, 387, rev den, 351 Or. 507 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Cockrell

Federal due process and Oregon law does not require (1) the disclosure of a grand jury member's handwritten notes, or (2) an in camera review of those notes in court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Craig

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, when officers have an initial lawful basis for a stop, but extend the stop past the point at which the initial lawful reason for the stop has dissipated, the extension “must be justified by at least reasonable suspicion of some other criminal activity.” State v. Sherman, 274 Or App 764, 773 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Flores

"In a jury trial, an error is harmless if there is little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict." State v. Davis, 336 OR 19, 32 (2003).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Hagner

Under OEC 404(3), prior acts evidence is admissible to demonstrate hostile motive if the State establishes a “substantial connecting link” sufficient to show “that the hostility that caused the [prior act] also motivated the charged [offense].”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

BP West Coast Products, LLP v. Dept. of Justice

Under ORS 646.930 the service station’s minimum requirement for posting fuel prices does not stop the Attorney general from incorporating rules under ORS 646.608(1)(u) to find and stop “any other unfair or deceptive conduct” regarding fuel prices display.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Cartrette v. Nooth

Under ORS 138.620(2), to obtain post-conviction relief on the ground that his lawyer’s performance did not comport with Article I, section 11, standards, a petitioner must prove facts showing (1) that his counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and (2) that petitioner suffered prejudice as a result.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Reeves v. Plett

Under ORCP 71 B(1), as a matter of law, for a party to prove it is entitled to relief from a trial court’s judgment of dismissal on the ground “excusable neglect” the party must demonstrate that it had “a reasonable excuse for failing—on account of neglect . . .—to appear or otherwise defend [its] interests.” Union Lumber Co. v. Miller, 360 Or 767, 778 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Shearer’s Food v. Hoffnagle

A single document may function as both an acceptance and a denial [of a worker's compensation claim]. Stockdale v. SAIF, 192 Or. App. 289, 84 P.3d 1120 (2004).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Girard

Under ORS 162.155(1)(b), it is a second-degree escape if, after having been convicted of a felony, a defendant escapes from custody imposed as a result of a felony conviction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Miller

Under either Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution or the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, disclosing incriminating medical test results that are acquired incidentally to treatment pursuant to ORS 676.260(1) does not implicate a constitutionally protected privacy interest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Towai

Under Article 1, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, an “inventory” (1) must be conducted pursuant to a policy that has been adopted by “politically accountable officials”; (2) the officer performing the inventory must not deviate from the “established policy or procedures of that particular law enforcement agency”; and (3) if those requirements are met, then a must “assure that such policies and procedures . . . do not violate constitutional guarantees. State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 8-10 (1984).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Wolff v. Board of Psychologist Examiners

Under OAR 137-003-0580, summary determination is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of any material fact that is relevant to resolving a legal issue when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Alsaedi v. Conroy

In order to recover attorney fees for property damage claims under ORS 20.080, the injured party must include all the required information about the damaged property or prove the information was unavailable or unreasonable to obtain.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Benavente v. Thayer

Under ORCP 54 E, once a claiming party files an accepted offer of judgment there is “nothing for the court to do but to enter what the parties have agreed upon,” see State ex rel State Scholarship Com’n v. Magar, 288 Or 635, 642, 607 P2d 167 (1980).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Dept. of Human Services v. D. I. R.

There must be sufficient evidence on the record to support the juvenile court’s determination concerning the possibility to return a child home in reasonable time. Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 283 Or App 367, 394, 388 P3d 417, rev allowed, 361 Or 350 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Farnworth v. Rossetto

A municipality does not assume any duty that is not expressly stated in its statutes. Indian Creek Development Co. v. City of Hood River, 203 Or App 231, 237-239, rev den, 340 OR 158 (2006).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Gutale v. State of Oregon

Under ORS 153.510(3)(a), a petitioner's subjective lack of awareness of the legal consequences of a plea will not delay the time in which a petition must be filed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Lunsford v. NCH Corp.

ORS 30.905(3)(b) (2008) does not violate the remedy clause of Article I, Section 10 or the jury clause of Article I, Section 17, because “[i]t is a permissible constitutional legislative function to balance the possibility of outlawing legitimate claims against the public need that at some definite time there be an end to potential litigation.” Sealey v. Hicks, 309 Or 387, 396, 788 P2d 435 (1990).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Repwest Ins. Co. v. Portland Adventist Medical Center

It is reversible error to submit questions of coverage to the jury in absence of factual questions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

State v. Brooks

Under ORS 137.030(1), "[T]he right conferred on a defendant . . . includes the right to have his sentence pronounced in open court.” State v. Jacobs, 200 Or App 665, 671, 117 P3d 290 (2005).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Dizick

Under ORS 138.083(1)(a), a trial court is not required to grant a defendant’s motion to modify an erroneous sentencing term, so long as it articulates a permissible reason for declining to do so. State v. Harding, 225 Or App 386, vac’d on other grounds, 347 Or 368 (2009)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Hogeland

Under ORS 136.425(1), “[a] confession or admission of a defendant . . . cannot be given in evidence against the defendant when it [is] made under the influence of fear produced by threats.” To determine whether a person's admissions were voluntary, the Court examines whether a person’s capacity for self-determination is critical impaired, under the totality of the circumstances. State v. Ruiz-Piza, 262 Or. App. 563, 573, 325 P.3d 802 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Kimbrough

Defendant's conduct of (1) soliciting his cellmate to "find someone" who would commit murder for payment, and (2) providing that cellmate a note with specific instructions on how to commit the murders was enough to establish that Defendant's conduct was a "substantial step" towards the commission of a crime. Therefore, defendant's attempted murder convictions upheld.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Servatius

Under ORS 133.076, the state must prove that, at the time of a required appearance, defendant knew of their obligation to appear in court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Tyler

To prove that a pedestrian “proceed[ed] along” a roadway within the meaning of ORS 814.070(1), the state must show that the pedestrian’s direction of travel was in a line that is generally parallel to the direction of the roadway where there is an adjacent usable sidewalk or shoulder.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

State v. Wiborg

Under ORS 165.570(1), the state must prove that a defendant “understood that he was using the 9-1-1 system to report activities that he did not reasonably believe required prompt emergency service ‘in order to preserve life or property.’” In re Strickland, 339 Or 595, 601 (2005) (quoting ORS 165.570(1)).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. T.Y.

Under ORS 426.005(1)(f), to establish that a person is dangerous to self “the state must present evidence that the person’s mental disorder would cause him or her to engage in behavior that is likely to result in physical harm to himself or herself in the near term.” State v. B.B., 240 Or App 75, 82 (2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Woods v. Franke

Under ORS 138.530(1)(a), a petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief if they establish a substantial denial of state or federal constitutional rights in proceedings which resulted in the petitioner’s conviction, which renders the conviction void.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

May 14 summaries

State v. Wilson

A person whose intends to preserve a constitutionally protected privacy interest, must manifest an intention to exclude the public by erecting barriers to entry, using fences or by posting signs. State v. Dixson/Digby, 307 Or 195, 211-12, 766 P2d 1015 (1988).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Carroll v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards 

ORS 183.745(4) allows a person against whom a civil penalty is to be imposed to request a hearing to challenge the penalty, to be conducted as a contested case hearing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

D.M.G. Tepper

Under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, an SPO may not be based on expressive contacts—those that involve speech—unless the speech is a threat that “instills in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, is unequivocal, and is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts.” State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303, 977 P2d 379 (1999).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Stalking Protective Order

Eamon Enterprises, LLC v. Kilcup

Under ORS 90.396, an act that is “outrageous in the extreme” is similar in degree to an act that would (1) put another at risk of substantial personal injury; (2) an act that substantially damages the landlord’s premises; or (3) any materially fraudulent information on rental agreement.  

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Fisher v. Angelozzi

"There are three components to a true Brady violation…the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused… evidence must have been suppressed by the state…and prejudice must have ensued." Strickler v. Greene, 527 US 263, 281-282, 119 S Ct 1936, 144 L Ed 2d 286 (1999).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Lenn v. Lane County

Under Measure 49, a county must not apply “in a manner that has the effect of prohibiting the establishment of the dwelling, lot or parcel authorized under [Measure 49] unless the standards are reasonably necessary to avoid or abate a nuisance, to protect public health or safety or to carry out federal law.” Or Laws 2007, ch 424, § 11(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

M.D.D. v Alonso

Under ORS 107.718(1), “a petitioner seeking a restraining order must present evidence to establish that [within 180 days after then incident) the respondent’s conduct created an imminent danger of further abuse and that the respondent was a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner.” Kelley v. Stutzman, 281 Or App 388, 391-92, (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Abuse Prevention Act

Maney v. Angelozzi

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution “[e]xcessive intervention by a trial judge substantially diminishes the effectiveness of the adversary system and may deprive a litigant of [the] right to an impartially administered trial.” State v. Mains, 295 Or 640, 664, 669 P2d 1112 (1983).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Litscher

In order to qualify for plain error review, an unpreserved argument must establish three elements: the argument must (1) identify an error “of law”; (2) the error must be “obvious and not reasonably in dispute; (3) the error must be “apparent on the record without requiring the court to choose among competing inferences.” Even when error is plain, an appellate court may still determine whether or not to exercise its discretion to review it. State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629-30 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Sheikh-Nur

ORS 138.225(5)(b) states that "[i]f the appellate court, in a case involving multiple counts of which at least one is a felony, reverses the judgment of conviction on any count and affirms other counts, the appellate court shall remand the case to the trial court for resentencing on the affirmed count or counts."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

U.S. Bank National Association v. Vettrus

Under ORCP 47(c), the moving party “bears the burden of persuasion at trial as well as “the burden of producing evidence to establish that [claim] as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage.” Wieck v. Hostetter, 274 Or App 457, 470 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

White v. Premo

Under ORS 138.550, successive petitions for post-conviction relief are procedurally barred from raising the same grounds for relief asserted in a previous petition. Cunio v. Premo, 284 Or App 698 (2017). 

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Ambriz-Arguello

When appealing a conviction for evidentiary error, petitioner must show based on the totality of the record that the court’s error affected a substantial right, and the jury’s verdict. State v. Kayfes, 213 Or App 543, 555, 162 P3d 308, rev den, 343 Or 690 (2007).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Jones

Under OEC 404(3) evidence of prior acts that bear on a person’s character is permissible, if the evidence is offered for a non-character purpose, and a theory of relevance for the nonpropensity purposes of 404(3) are met.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

June 42 summaries

Akins v. SAIF 286 Or App 70 (2017)

Under ORS 656.267, a workers’ compensation claimant is allowed to obtain acceptance of conditions that are not included in the scope of an insurer’s acceptance of the claimant’s claim, which must “[s]pecify what conditions are compensable,” ORS 656.262(6)(b)(A), that are “new” or “omitted” in regards to a notice of acceptance.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Anderson v. Background Check Unit 286 Or App 27 (2017)

Under OAR 407-007-00330(7)(a): “The [subject individual] must participate in the administrative review. Participation may include, but is not limited to, providing additional information or additional documents requested by the BCU with a specified amount of time.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Courter v. City of Portland 280 Or App 39 (2017)

Under Article I, section 18, “whenever the government permanently physically occupies the property of a citizen, that physical occupation is a taking.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Dept. of Human Services v. J. R. D. 286 Or App 55 (2017)

Under ORS 419B.150(3, “A rehearing before a judge of the juvenile court may be determined on the same evidence introduced before the referee … but, in any case, additional evidence may be presented.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Huntsinger v. BNSF Railway Co.286 Or App 84 (2017)

Under 49 U.S.C. § 20701, “when a railroad carrier’s customary processes for preparing an outbound locomotive for departure are complete, and the locomotive will not undergo further comprehensive inspections, it is appropriate to regard the railroad carrier as having allowed the locomotive to be put ‘in use.’”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Sako v. Taylor 286 Or App 9 (2017)

In order to establish prejudice, it must be shown that counsel's performance "had a tendency to affect the result of the prosecution." Green v. Franke, 357 Or 301, 321 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Sheil and Sheil 286 Or App 34 (2017)

An agreement to waive the right to seek modification of spousal support is enforceable if it does not violate public policy. McInnis and McInnis, 199 Or. App. 223, 110 P.3d 639 (2005), rev dismissed, 338 Or. 681 (2005).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Chelemedos 286 Or App 77 (2017)

ORS 136.290 only provides a mechanism for a defendant to obtain release after being held 60 days; it does not provide that incarceration beyond 60 days is automatically prejudicial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Edwards 286 Or App 99 (2017)

Under ORS 137.123(5)(b), “[a] single act produces only one set of harms, even if the act constitutes multiple offenses.” State v. Rettmann, 218 Or App 179, 186 (2008).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Garcia-Cisneros

ORS 811.705 requires a driver to know of an accident causing injury, it does not imply an assumption that a driver must return to the scene after learning of the accident at a later time.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Williams v. CBS Corp., 286 Or App 1 (2017)

“[W]hen one corporation purchases all of the assets of another corporation, the purchasing corporation does not become liable for the debts and liabilities of the selling corporation,” unless one of four recognized exceptions are met. Tyree Oil, Inc. v. BOLI, 168 Or App 278, 282 (2000).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

City of Lebanon v. Milburn

Under ORS 133.643(a), “an individual from whose person, property or premises things have been seized may move the appropriate court to return things seized to the person or premises from which they were seized.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Curzi v. Oregon State Lottery

Under ORS 30.275(2)(b), the time period by which a plaintiff must provide notice of his or her tort claims to defendants “begins to run when the plaintiff knows[,] or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known[,] facts which would make a reasonable person aware of a substantial possibility that each of the three elements (harm, causation, and tortious conduct) exists.” Uruo v. Clackamas County, 166 Or App 133, 143, (2000) (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Gadalean v. SAIF

Under ORS 656.005(30), a “worker” is “any person, including a minor whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, who engages to furnish services for a remuneration, subject to the direction and control of an employer."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Oregon Health Authority v. Cue

38 USC section 5301(a)(1) does not preclude a state hospital from seeking reimbursement for the past costs of maintenance and care from a deceased veteran's benefits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trusts and Estates

Petrillo v. PERB

Under ORS 239.715(2), "Any person who receives a payment from the Public Employees Retirement Fund and who is not entitled to receive that payment, including a member of the system who receives an overpayment, holds the improperly made payment in trust subject to the board’s recovery of that payment under this section or by a civil action or other proceeding.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Cook

Under ORS 163.195(1), to determine whether a defendant was aware that his actions were creating a substantial risk of serious physical injury, and that defendant consciously disregarded that risk, “[r]easonable inferences are permissible; speculation and guesswork are not.” State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460, 462 (2004).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Garcia-Rocio

Under OEC 403, although a trial court is not required to make an explicit record of its thoughts about each of the four OEC 403 balancing analysis steps laid out in State v. Mayfield, the record must indicate that the trial court considered the substance of those four steps, and "engage[d] in the conscious process of balancing the costs of the evidence against its benefits."  State v. Conrad, 280 Or App 325, 331 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 851 (2017).  

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Gerety

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the State must demonstrate its attempts to get a warrant and how those attempts either did not work or would not have worked within a reasonable time given the procedures available to the officers. State v. Sullivan, 265 Or App 62, 333 P3d 1201 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Haddon

The anti-merger statute, ORS 161.067(1), provides that when a given conduct or "criminal episode" violates two or more criminal statutes, and one these statutes require establishing an element not present in the other, each violation is to be treated as a "separately punishable offense."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Khoshnaw

Under ORAP 5.45(4)(a)(iii), an assignment of error challenging an evidentiary ruling, must quote or summarize the evidence that appellant claims was erroneously admitted or excluded; If an assignment of error challenges the exclusion of evidence, appellant also must identify in the record where the trial court excluded the evidence and where the offer of proof was made.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Newton

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, to transform an encounter between an officer and a citizen into a "seizure," . . . “some exercise of coercive authority by the officer, such as retention of the identification after examination and a continuation of investigatory activities, is required.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Savinskiy

“Article 1, Section II, can also foreclose interrogation of a defendant without his or her attorney present when the interrogation is regarding uncharged conduct and occurs after the defendant has retained counsel for a previously charged offense, if the charged and uncharged conduct is ‘sufficiently related.’” State v. Prieto-Rubio, 359 Or. 36-37 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Turudic

Under ORS 811.700(1)(a), a driver commits a misdemeanor crime if they fail to "affirmatively provide" the other driver or passenger the name and address of the driver and the registration number of the vehicle . . . and the name and address of any other occupants . . ."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v McColly

A person “fails to appear in the second degree” if he or she knowingly does not appear after being “released from custody or a correctional facility"under a court ordered release agreement. ORS 162.195(1)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

White v. Premo

Under ORS 138.550(2) and ORS 138.550(3), when a petitioner has appealed and files a petition for post-conviction relief, the petitioner must raise all grounds that could reasonably be asserted at that time. Kinkel v. Persson, 276 Or App 427, rev allowed, 359 Or 525 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Humphrey v. OHSU

Payment by a public body for any part of a claim can constitute notice. ORS 30.275(3)(d). A “person who makes an advance payment … with written notice of the date of expiration of the period of limitation for the commencement of an action … does not suspend the running of such period of limitation." ORS 12.155(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Persels & Associates, LLC v. DCBS

ORS 697.612(3)(b) provides an exemption to the registration requirement for attorneys who provide a debt management service only “incidentally in the practice of law.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Consumer Credit

State v. Long

The state must prove either that the defendant inflicted substantial pain on or impaired the physical condition of the alleged victim in order to convict the defendant of fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence. ORS 161.015(7); ORS 163.160(1)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Stevens

When searches are conducted by or with the aid of probation officers, “mere ‘pressure’” to not violate probation alone is insufficient to establish coercion. State v. Davis, 133 Or App 467, 475-76, 891 P2d 1373, rev den, 321 Or 429 (1995).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Adams v. Presnell

When an agent injured a principle, agent’s negligence cannot be imputed to a principal based upon principal’s negligence unless the principal’s negligence was actual. Sheehan v. Apling, 227 Or 594, 363 P2d 575 (1961).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Dept. of Human Services v. L. S. H.

Jurisdiction of a child is permissible when a parent admits to an allegation, even if the allegation is “ambiguous and susceptible to multiple interpretations” if one of those interpretations would allow DHS to present evidence that is sufficient to prove jurisdiction is necessary. Dept. of Human Services v. D.D., 238 Or App 134, 140-141, 241 P3d 1177, 1181 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 602 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dominguez and Fields

Under OEC 611(1), a trial court, may “exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witness and presenting evidence so as to make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, avoid needless consumption of time and protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Guembes v. Roberts

Pursuant to ORS 19.270, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to decide the merits of an appeal in the absence of a new or amended notice to appeal if the initial notice was filed prematurely. Assoc. Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condo. v. Warren, 242 Or App 425, 436-37, 256 P3d 146 (2011), aff’d on other grounds, 352 Or 583, 288 P3d 958 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Marandas Family Trust v. Pauley

ORS 20.080 does not require a plaintiff to serve any insurer that “might” have an obligation to the claim, but only insurers known to have an obligation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

McDermott v. SAIF

Under Schleiss v. SAIF, in the context of a combined condition worker’s compensation claima cognizable preexisting condition is subject apportionment upon the rating of impairment under ORS 656.214 in the benefits award process.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Merrill v. A. R. G.

“Proof that a defendant had probable cause is a complete defense to a claim for malicious prosecution.” Mathre v. Multnomah County, 35 Or App 75, 79, 581 P2d 88 (1978).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Quesnoy v. Dept. of Rev.

ORS 18.345(1)(k) exempts from a creditors' ability to garnish, payments or property, up to $10,000 in value, received as an award of damages for the “personal bodily injury’ of [a] debtor.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Adams

“There are three prerequisites for ordering a compensatory ne under ORS 137.101: (1) criminal activities, (2) economic damages, and (3) a causal relationship between the two.” State v. Alonso, 284 Or App 512, 516, 393 P3d 256 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Velasquez

A person could be guilty of initiating a false report under ORS 162.375 if a "sufficient nexus" exists between a defendant's statements and the initial false report.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Oregon Wild v. Port of Portland

"A law is classified under the 'first category' if it is 'written in terms directed to the substance of any "opinion or any "subject" of communication'". State v. Robertson, 293 Or. at 412

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Reinert v. Clackamas County

For purposes of ZDO 1307.16(K), “substantial similarity” between applications depends upon whether there are material differences in the content of both applications with respect to application of the approval criteria. Reinert v. Clackamas County, 286 Or. App. 431, 438 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

July 29 summaries

Dept. of Human Services v. A. B.

Under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, “the term ‘foster care’ . . . describes arrangements of such duration as to be integral parts of the rearing process, as opposed to arrangements that are presumptively temporary or for limited purposes.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Harvey v. SAIF

When the Board is determining whether the findings of a Claimant’s attending physician are more accurate than those of medical arbiter under OAR 436-035-0007(5), the Board must provide substantial reason, as well as substantial evidence, on how its factual findings lead to the legal conclusions on which the order is based. Hicks v. SAIF, 196 Or App 146 (2004).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Hughes-Kuda and Kuda

ORS 107.105(1)(d)(C) provides a set of factors that a trial court considers when determining the appropriate amount and duration of spousal support to be awarded. This list includes, but is not limited to, the duration of the marriage; age and health of the parties; any standard of living established during marriage; and the relative income and earning capacity of the parties, in addition to other proscribed factors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Nicita v. City of Oregon City

Under ORS 197.850(9)(a), when a petitioner asserts a substantial evidence issue, the role of the Court of Appeals is “to ensure that LUBA has followed the proper “substantial evidence” standard . . . not to assess whether the local government erred in making a finding, but to determine whether LUBA properly exercised its review authority.” Root v. Klamath County, 260 Or App 665, 670 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

State v. Beltran-Chavez

If evidence will be perceived by a jury as scientific and, therefore, have an "unusually high degrees of persuasive power," a court must ensure that the "persuasive appeal is legitimate." State v. Okey, 321 Or 285, 291 (1995).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Carrillo

Under OAR 213-012-0020 2(b), a sentence for a single criminal episode is limited to 200 percent of the presumptive maximum term for the primary offense, except by departure. State v. Miller, 317 Or 297, 305 (1993).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Davis

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, when a stop is initially lawful, “it may endure only for the time it takes an officer to complete an investigation that is reasonably related to the basis for the stop.” State v. Sherman, 274 Or. App. 764, 773 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Jones

ORS 811.505(1)(a) provides in part that "[a] person commits the offense of failure to stop when emerging from an alley, driveway or building” if the driver does not stop when before crossing a sidewalk or sidewalk area."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Mendoza

“A court cannot impose fees based on pure speculation that a defendant has funds to pay the fees or may acquire them in the future.” State v. Pendergrapht, 251 Or App 630, 634 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Ortega

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, when a defendant requests to exercise his or her right to self-representation, the trial court must make a determination on the record (1) whether the defendant’s request for self-representation is “an intelligent and understanding decision”; and (2) “whether granting the defendant’s request would disrupt the judicial process.” State v. Miller, 254 Or App 514, 522-23 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Washington

The phrase “passive resistance” means “noncooperation with a lawful order of a peace officer that does not involve active conduct.”  State v. McNally, 361 Or 314, 339, 392 P3d 721 (2017),.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Dye

The court has the ability to make an informed ruling when it divides an offer of proof into separate parts, invites arguments about that division, and then rules on the admissibility of those individual parts. State v. Ryel, 182 Or App 423, 435, 51 P3d 8 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 255 (2003). 

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Doe v. Silverman

ORS 12.117 extends the statute of limitations if a plaintiff alleges a defendant had “actual, and not merely constructive, knowledge of child abuse.” Lourim v. Swensen, 147 Or App 425, 444, 936 P2d 1011 (1997) (Lourim I), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 328 Or 380, 977 P2d 1157 (1999) (Lourim II).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Clardy

The knowledge component of a defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel can be satisfied if the totality of the circumstances demonstrates the defendant understood the risks of self-representation; the intent component can be demonstrated by a defendant’s conduct. See State v. Howard, 172 Or App 546, 553, rev den, 332 Or 305 (2001); State v. Langley, 351 Or 652, 669 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Gray

Evidence is relevant “so long as the inference desired by the proponent is reasonable, even if the evidence could also support a contradictory inference.” State v. Hanson, 280 Or App 196, 205 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Hershey

A warrantless search is justified under the emergency aid doctrine when police officers have an objectively reasonable belief based on articulable facts that it is immediately necessary to render aid to a person or animal. State v. Fessenden, 258 Or App 639, 649, 310 P3d 1163 (2013), aff’d on other grounds sub nom State v. Fessenden/ Dicke, 355 Or 759, 333 P3d 278 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Marks

“Two or more offenses may be charged in the same charging instrument in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged are alleged to have been committed by the same person and are … connected together or constitut[ed] parts of a common scheme or plan.” ORS 132.560(1)(b)(C).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Holsclaw

"‘Premises where persons under 18 years of age regularly congregate’ means schools, child care centers, playgrounds, other places intended for use primarily by persons under 18 years of age and places where persons under 18 years of age gather for regularly scheduled educational and recreational programs.” ORS 163.476(2)(a)(2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

A.M. v. N.E.D.

Under ORS 19.205, prejudgment orders granted pursuant ORS 109.324(1) are not appealable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Aaroe and Aaroe

A "court should increase or decrease spousal support only to the degree necessary to enable the parties to adjust to the new circumstances." Thomas and Thomas, 181 Or. App. 128, 134 (2002).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Federal Home Loan Mortage Corp. v. Smith

Under ORS 86.797(1), “the participation of a ‘trustee’ is so fundamental to a ‘trustee’s sale’ that a sale cannot foreclose and terminate an individual’s property interest unless that sale is conducted by an actual trustee.” Wolf v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, 276 Or App 541 (2016) (emphasis added).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trusts and Estates

Schmidt v. Noonkester

Under ORS 124.110(1)(a), an action for financial elder abuse may be brought “[w]hen a person wrongfully takes or appropriates money or property of a vulnerable person."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Elder Law

Slater v. SAIF

Under ORS 656.245(1)(a)), Insurers “are responsible for medical services ‘for conditions'—that is, ordinary conditions—that are ‘caused in material part’ by compensable workplace injuries.” SAIF v. Sprague, 346 Or 661, 664, 217 P3d 644 (2009).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Geyer ​

“Preservation requires that an issue must first be presented to the trial court in order to be considered on appeal . . . . [T]he preservation rule is a practical one, and close calls . . . inevitably will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the court concludes that the policies underlying the rule have been sufficiently served.” State v. Parkins, 346 Or. 333, 341, (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Hurtado

A statement is a confession if made “for the purpose of acknowledging that the speaker is guilty of some criminal offense." A statement is an admission if "made for some purpose other than to acknowledge guilt, and if it is not so closely related to the . . . confession as to become part of it.” See State v. Manzella, 306 Or 303, 315-316 (1988).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Mejia

An issue is preserved for review if it is presented clearly in a written motion, notwithstanding a party’s failure to reiterate all of its arguments at a subsequent hearing. State v. Walker, 350 Or 540 (2011)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Najar

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, a seizure occurs “(a) if a law enforcement officer intentionally and significantly restricts, interferes with, or otherwise deprives an individual of that individual’s liberty or freedom of movement; or (b) if a reasonable person under the totality of the circumstances would believe that (a) above has occurred.” State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297, 316, 244 P3d 360 (2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Sigfridson 

To satisfy its burden under the inevitable discovery doctrine, the state was required to show by a preponderance of evidence "(1) that certain proper and predictable investigatory procedures would have been utilized in the instant case, and (2) that those procedures inevitably would have resulted in the discovery of the evidence in question.” State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 226 (1985).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. T. Z.

Under ORS 426.005(1)(f)(C), in order to be lawfully recommitted, a person be (1) over 18 years old and, (2) "[have] a chronic mental illness” per ORS 426.495"; (3) "been twice committed in the past three years by state authority; (4) “exhibiting symptoms or behavior substantially similar to those that preceded and led to one or more [commitments]”; and (5) "[that] unless treated, will continue, to a reasonable medical probability, to physically or mentally deteriorate."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

August 19 summaries

Bradford v. Premo

Under ORS 138.640(1), the “clear statement rule” requires judgments denying relief in post-conviction cases must: “(1) identify the claims for relief that the court considered and make separate rulings on each claim; (2) declare, with regard to each claim, whether the denial is based on a petitioner’s failure to utilize or follow available state procedures or a failure to establish the merits of the claim; and (3) make the legal bases for denial of relief apparent.” Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672, 685 (2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Celano and Celano

Under ORS 107.105(1)(f), in order to overcome the presumption of equal contributions, a spouse must show by preponderance of the evidence that the other spouse did not contribute equally to the asset at issue during the marriage. Kunze and Kunze, 337 Or 122, 134 (2004).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Home Forward v. Graham

If the action at issue is not listed in ORS 90.396, the court must compare the action with the listed actions to determine if it rises to the level of “outrageous in the extreme.” Emon Enterprises, LLC v. Kilcup, 285 Or App 639, 642, 395 P3d 78 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Landlord Tenant

State v. Brunnemer

A trial court abuses its discretion when it overrules a defendant’s objection to a prosecutor’s improper argument if the argument is “likely to prejudice the jury unfairly,” and the trial court does not take action sufficient to cure the prejudice. State v. Logston, 270 Or App 296, 303 (2015) (quoting State v. Bolt, 108 Or App 746, 749, (1991))

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Gensitskiy

Under ORS 161.067(2), “[w]hen the same conduct or criminal episode, though violating only one statutory provision involves two or more victims, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are victims.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Malm

Under ORS 137.225(3), if the 'circumstances and behavior' of an applicant from the date of an arrest to the date of the hearing on a motion for setting aside the record of that arrest preclude an applicant from being granted relief, the court shall enter an appropriate order.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Miller

Under OEC 803(5), "the making of a record for the purposes of OEC 803(5) requires the witness’s knowledge that the statement is being memorialized in order to ensure that the statement carries greater trustworthiness than any other hearsay statement.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Moreno

There is no error in a trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction that is incomplete. State v. Wan, 251 Or App 74, 83 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Norgren

A waiver of Miranda rights must be made knowingly and intelligently with full awareness of the consequences of the waiver. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Deford, 177 Or App 555, 572-73, 34 P3d 673 (2001).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Uroza-Zuniga

Under Article XI, section 2, of the Oregon Constitution, Oregon’s municipalities may not enact ordinances that “conflict” with state laws. City of Portland v. Jackson, 316 Or 143, 146 (1993).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Warren

Under Article VII (Amended), section 3, whether improper joinder of charges affected the verdict depends on whether joinder led to the admission of evidence that would not have been admissible but for the joinder . . . and, if so, whether that evidence affected the verdict on those charges.” State v. Poston, 277 Or App 137, 145 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Wooten

ORS 164.405(1) has two different subsections that address the same coercive effect and threat of violence but nonetheless creates only a single crime of second degree robbery. State v. Behen, 230 Or App 31, 34, 213 P3d 851 (2009)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Nacey v. Board of Massage Therapists

Under OAR 137-003-0580, summary determination is appropriate only if the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, establishes that “there is ‘no genuine issue as to any material fact that is relevant to resolution of the legal issue as to which a decision is sought,’ and the party filing the motion[] ‘is entitled to a favorable ruling as a matter of law.’” Wolff v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 284 Or App 792, 800 (2017)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Certain Underwriters v. Mass. Bonding and Ins. Co.

As long as appeal is pending, finality does not attach piecemeal to the parts of a judgment or order that are not placed in direct controversy by the parties’ arguments on appeal. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Koitzsch, 155 Or App 494, 500 (1998).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Docken v. Myrick

Two elements must be established to prove inadequate counsel: (1) an attorney "failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment," and (2) "counsel's failure had a tendency to affect the result of the trial." Montez v. Czerniak, 355 OR 1, 7 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Doe v. Silverman

Under ORS 12.117 (2009), the amended statute of limitation applies “to all applicable causes of action, no matter when the cause of action arose, except in cases where a judgment was entered prior to the effective date of ORS 12.117 (2009).”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Gutierrez-Medina

Under ORS 137.106, comparative fault is not a factor in the restitution analysis from a criminal conviction. State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 368 P3d 446 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Pack

A joinder is harmful to a defendant if (1) the evidence under both cases would have been admissible in individual, separate trials for each case and (2) the evidence admitted improperly affected the verdict. State v. Clardy, 286 Or App 745, 772-73 (2017); State v. Marks, 286 Or App 775 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Reich

During a traffic stop, an officer may not ask about matters unrelated to the reason of the stop “instead of expeditiously proceeding with the steps necessary to complete the stop.” State v Nims, 248 Or App 708, 713, 274 P3d 235, rev den, 352 Or 378 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

September 30 summaries

Folz v. ODOT

Under ORS 659A.203(1), it is unlawful for any public employer to threaten to take, or actually take, disciplinary action against an employee for her disclosure of evidence which she reasonably believes is indicative of her employer's violation of a federal, state, or local law. For purposes of the statute, "disclosure" is to include official reports within the agency or department. Bjurstrom v. Oregon Lottery, 202 Or App 162, 169, 120 P3d 1235 (2005).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Gaines v. Employment Dept.

“In determining whether the board’s order is supported by substantial reason, [the court] consider[s] whether that order articulate the reasoning that leads from the facts found to the conclusions drawn.” Walker v. Providence Health System Oregon, 254 Or App 676, 686, 298 P3d 38, rev den, 353 Or 714 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Owen v. Taylor

In order to establish that trial counsel rendered inadequate assistance of counsel, a petitioner must prove two elements: (1) that counsel “failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment,” and (2) that “petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequacy.” Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Balero

Revealing personal information about another person to a third party others does not constitute “interference” for purposes of the FAPA. State v. Trivitt, 247 Or. App. 199, 203, 268 P.3d 765 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Abuse Prevention Act

State v. Burnham

The affidavit of a search warrant must substantiate probable cause to search the contents of each individual electronic device included in the warrant. State v. Friddle, 281 Or App 130, 381 P3d 979 (2016); State v. Mansor, 279 Or App 778, 381 P3d 930 (2016), rev allowed, 360 Or 752 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Wildlife Law

State v. Carson

A driver impedes traffic under ORS 811.130 if a by a preponderance of the evidence, a trier of fact can find the driver “altered the normal movement of traffic.” State v. Chen, 266 Or App 683, 688, 338 P3d 795 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Sanelle

A statement that is “tenuous or equivocal in isolation may be a sufficient request for counsel when evaluated in the context of all of the circumstances.” State v. Brooke, 276 Or App 885, 892 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Villar

An argument may be preserved for appeal if it is apparent from the record that the trial court should have known the reasoning behind a general objection to the admissibility of evidence. Williamson v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 284 Or 11, 16, 584 P2d 753 (1978).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Department of Human Services v. T.L.

A juvenile court must make permanency plan determinations under ORS 419B.476(2)(a), in accordance with the bases of the court’s initial jurisdiction that are “expressly stated or fairly implied.”  Dept. of Human Services v. N.T., 247 Or App 706, 715-16 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Jensen v. Hilsboro Law Group, PC

A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must proffer evidence for any issue raised that they would also have the burden of persuasion for at trial. Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or 319, 324 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Lopez v. Nooth

When ruling on a motion for substitution of counsel in a post-conviction proceeding, a court must determine whether existing counsel is “suitable,” per ORS 138.590. Appointed counsel may be substituted “pursuant to the policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines of the Public Defense Services Commission.” ORS 138.590(4).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Carpenter

A person can conceal another “through an act or omission with the intent to induce law enforcement to believe that the fugitive is not present.” State v. Turley, 202 Or App 49-50, 120 P3d 1229 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 157 (2006).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v Garcia-Rocio

Under ORS 163.411, unlawful sexual penetration in the first degree is considered a Class A Felony and is subject to ORS 144.103 and 161.605, which limit the aggregate of prison sentence and post-prison supervision to a maximum of 20-years.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Wille v. Board of Parole

Simply because a reasonable person could come to a different conclusion does not suggest that the board’s implicit finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Weems/Roberts v. Board of Parole, 347 Or. 586, 602-03, 227 P.3d 671 (2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Winstead v. State of Oregon

ORS 138.510(3) provides an exception for untimely post-conviction relief claims if the petitioner could not have reasonably raised the initial claim. When counsel fails to file a timely petition, the petitioner must notify the court of the failure in order to qualify for the exception in ORS 138.510(3). Church v. Gladden, 244 Or 308, 417 P2d 993 (1966).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Mendacino v. Board of Parole

ORS 144.280 and OAR 255-062-0016 are not unconstitutional ex post facto laws because neither give the board the authority to defer parole beyond the period determined at the time of the offense or give additional reasons to defer parole. Morrison v. Board of Parole, 277 Or App 861, 863, 374 P3d 948, rev den, 360 Or 465 (2016); ORS 144.335(3).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Murray and Murray

Under ORS 107.137(2), identifying one parent as the primary caregiver is not outcome-determinative in child custody cases and must be weighed with all relevant statutory factors to determine what custody arrangement represents the child’s best interests. Courts may consider parent work schedules, distance between parents’ homes, and the logistics of proposed parenting plans in fostering strong contacts with both parents. Miller and Miller, 269 Or App 436, 437, 345 P3d 472 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Chambers

Under ORS 813.260(2), a probation officer shall monitor a person’s progress under a diversion agreement and shall report her successful completion of or failure to comply with the treatment program to the court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Hinkle

Juvenile adjudications are treated in the same manner as adult convictions, in regards to the sex offender reporting requirements laid out in former ORS 181.599 (2011). Failure to report as a sex offender is a felony offense if "the crime for which the person is required to report is a felony," former ORS 181.599(3)(b) (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Sines

Parents retain property rights in the items, including clothing, they provide their children. Hoblyn v. Johnson, 55 P3d 1219 (Wyo, 2002). When searching items without a warrant, the state may examine without invading a person’s privacy interests if the contents in in open view or if the item “by its very nature announce[s] [its] contents.” Walter v. United States, 447 US 649, 654, 100 S Ct 2395 (1980).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Von Flue

Under Article 1, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, a warrantless search is considered unreasonable unless an exception to the warrant requirement can be established. State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177 (2006). The automobile exception allows an officer to "search a car without a warrant, if the officer has probable cause to believe the car contains evidence of a crime and the car is mobile at the time they stop it." State v. Anderson, 361 OR 187, 189 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Zielinski

An actor’s personal characteristics are relevant to “the actor’s situation,” and are thereby admissible to support the defense of EED, whereas an actor’s personality characteristics are not. State v. Ott, 297 Or 375, 395-96 (1984)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Black v. Coos County

Under the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act, (PECBA), public employers and employees are required to enter into collective bargaining agreements, and to resolve disputes pertaining to allegations of unfair labor practices through the Employment Relations Board, (ERB). ORS 243.650 to 243.782.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Buchwalter-Drumm v. Dept. of Human Services

Under the Oregon Tort Claims Act, a minor’s actual or imputed knowledge begins the statutorily required notice period, however, a minor’s claim is not tolled by an adult relative until they become a guardian ad litem. Banda v. Danner, 87 Or App 69, 73 (1987), aff’d 307 Or 302 (1988).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Garcia-Solis v. Farmers Ins. Co.

Under ORS 656.245(1), “[d]iagnostic services can only be compensable if they are required for a determination or severity of an already accepted compensable injury, but “diagnostic services for the purpose of establishing the compensability of a new or consequential condition are not compensable.” Counts v. International Paper Co., 146 Or App 268, 271 (1997).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Iverson's Unlimited, Inc. v. Winco Foods, LLC

On summary judgment, “a reasonable jury could reach . . . a contrary conclusion, but . . . the question is not which conclusion is most likely but whether an issue of fact exists that permits jury resolution.” Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or 319, 332 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Maidens v. Nooth

ORS 138.510(3) requires that a petition for post-conviction relief be brought within two years from the date of the final interlocutory judgment, unless the court determines that the contested grounds for relief in a subsequent petition could not have been reasonably raised in the original petition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. MacDonald

Per ORS 163.705(1), it is a crime to "intentionally or recklessly [engage] in conduct prohibited by [a stalking protective order.]"

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Stalking Protective Order

State v. Snyder

“A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime when the person intentionally engages in conduct which constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime.” ORS 161.405(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Woods

Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, “[t]o search lost property, officers need to have a good faith, subjective belief that the property is lost and that belief needs to be ‘objectively reasonable under the circumstances.’” State v. Vanburen, 262 Or App 715, 722 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

October 34 summaries

Beaudry v. SAIF

When a traveling employee is on a “distinct departure on a personal errand” the employee is no longer considered to be within the course and scope of employment. SAIF v. Scardi, 218 Or App 403, 180 P3d 56, rev den, 345 Or 175 (2008)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. B.H.C.

ORS 419C.453(1) provides, “[p]ursuant to a hearing, the juvenile court may order a youth offender placed in a detention facility for a specific period of time not to exceed eight days...”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Ixcolin-Otzoy

To preserve an argument for appeal, a party must proffer a precise and narrow explanation of the objection to the trial court so that it may have ample opportunity to address any errors. State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343, 15 P3d 22 (2000).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. M. L. S.

A failure to provide all information proscribed by ORS 427.265 may be harmless error if the party received all if that information from an alternative source. State v. S. J. F., 247 Or App 321, 326-28, 269 P3d 83 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. M.M.

The purpose of ORS 426.100(1) is to provide a person facing a civil commitment the benefits of a full and fair hearing. Due to the nature of a civil commitment, a court’s failure to provide a person with information in accordance with ORS 426.100(1) is subject to plain error review. State v. M. L. R., 256 Or App 566, 569, 303 P3d 954 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Roberts

In determining whether evidence is admissible over an OEC 403 objection, a trial court must expressly consider the evidence’s relevance, probative value, and risk of unfair prejudice. State v. Brown, 272 Or App 424, 431-32, rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Yi v. City of Portland

When a condition is found to be compensable after claim closure, an employer is required to reopen a claim and reevaluate as opposed to modifying of a notice of closure. ORS 656.262(7)(c).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Hunsinger v. Graham

To establish a claim for third party liability under ORS 124.100(5), a party must provide sufficient evidence of defendant’s actual knowledge or constructive knowledge that abuse of a vulnerable person occurred. Wyers v. American Medical Response Northwest, Inc., 360 Or 211, 377 P3d 570 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Elder Law

Skille v. Martinez

Under ORS 30.275(2)(b), the 180-day notice requirement begins to run when a plaintiff knew or should have known of the tortious nature of the conduct. Whether a plaintiff knew or should have known is a question of fact for the jury to determine how a reasonable person in the circumstances of the plaintiff would have acted in the same or similar situation. Doe v. Lake Oswego School District, 353 Or 321, 334-35 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Johnson

Under ORS 135.432(3), a defendant must be given a reasonable opportunity to withdraw his or her plea if the trial court changes the terms of a sentencing agreement after already having accepted them.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Robinson

Under ORS 161.309(3), a defendant may file notice to present an insanity defense “at any time” before trial, if just cause for not filing it at the time of plea is provided.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Alne v. Nooth

Pursuant to Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, in order to be granted post-conviction relief on the basis of inadequate counsel, "a petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his trial counsel did not exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequate performance." Trujillo v. Maass, 312 Or 431, 435, 822 P2d 703 (1991).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Dischinger Orthodontics v. Regence BlueCross BlueShield

When a claim for declaratory judgment under ORS 28.020 is based on the same underlying facts as a claim barred by ORS 65.084(1), the standing limitations of the more specific statute prevail under ORS 174.020(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

K. A. L. v. Hinkle

If it is determined that a person has intentionally or recklessly engaged in two or more unwanted contacts with a person, which alarms the recipient in an objectively reasonable manner, a trial court may issue a stalking protective order. ORS 163.738(2)(a)(B)(i). The recipient of the unwanted contacts must have a "reasonable apprehension regarding his or her personal safety." ORS 163.738(2)(a)(B)(iii). However, when the contacts are merely expressive, (i.e. spoken or written communications), Article 1, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution requires a showing that "those expressive contacts constitute[d] 'threats.'" State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303 (1999).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

National Maintenance Contractors v. Employment Dept.

Under the test provided in Avanti, if a franchisor retains direction and control over the means (i.e. tools of the trade) and manner (i.e. the method) that a franchisee utilizes in its operations, the franchisee is not an independent contractor. Avanti Press v. Employment Dept. Tax Section, 248 OR App 450, 463 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Rockbridge Capital v. City of Eugene

LUBA may remand a decision to a local governing body when that issue has been raised under a local ordinance. Smith v. Douglas County, 93 Or App 503, 763 P2d 169 (1988), aff’d, 308 Or 191, 777 P2d 1377 (1989); OAR 661-010-0071. Adecision by LUBA to remand to a local governing body is not “unlawful in substance” if the issues are properly raised before the local governing bodies. ORS 197.850(9)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

State v. Allen

The particularity requirement of ORS 133.565 (2)(c) and the Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution requires a warrant to have (1) a clearly described place to search as to allow officers to seize items with “a reasonable degree of certainty” and (2) the search warrant must “be drawn in such a way as to preclude seizures and searches not supported by probable cause.” State v. Mansor, 279 Or App 778, 792-93, 381 P3d 930 (2016), rev allowed, 360 Or 752 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Lomax

“[W]hen the state advances competing theories of liability based on a defendant’s acts as a principal and as an aider or abettor, the jury must be instructed that they must agree on each legislatively defined element necessary to find the defendant liable under one theory or the other.” State v. Phillips, 354 Or 598, 606, 317 P3d 236 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Morris

A court’s failure to comply with sentencing procedures “does not require reversal and remand for resentencing unless the error ‘prejudiced the defendant in request to a substantial right.’” State v. Dawson, 252 Or App 85, 90 (2012) (quoting ORS 131.035).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Ortiz-Saldana

A conviction for witness tampering must be based on evidence that a defendant intended to induce a person “not to testify or to testify falsely” in a hypothetical future criminal proceeding. The intent must be understood from Defendant’s mindset when making the threats. State v. Bailey, 346 Or 551 (2009).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. R. W. G.

A claim of error is preserved when the legal insufficiency of the evidence is argued before the court. This is different from a closing argument only persuading a factfinder that the evidence does not favor the other party beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Forrester, 203 Or App 151, 155, 125 P3d 47 (2005), rev den, 341 Or 141 (2006).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Riley

“The state must prove that the violation of [a] defendant’s rights had such a tenuous factual link to the disputed evidence that the unlawful police conduct cannot be properly viewed as the source of that evidence.” State v. Benning, 273 Or App 183, 194, 359 P3d 357 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Rivera-Ortiz

“A jury may perceive expert testimony as scientific if it rests on a scientific underpinning unfamiliar to the jury, or is phrased in scientific terms.” State v. Beltran-Chavez, 286 Or App 590, 600 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Rosling

Per ORS 811.370(1)(a), "drivers [are required] to operate their vehicles 'as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane.'”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Walsh

As a general rule, "[an appellate court] will not consider an argument on appeal that has not been raised in the trial court." State v. Walker, 350 Or 540, 548, 258 P3d 1228 (2011). In order to determine whether an issue has been preserved for appeal, a court will look to “whether a party has given opponents and the trial court enough information to be able to under the contention and to fairly respond to it.”  State v. Blasingame, 267 Or App 686, 691, 341 P3d 182 (2014), rev den, 357 Or 299 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Walsh

Under ORS 132.560(1)(b), a charging instrument may typically charge one offense, but may provide for multiple offenses if they were executed by the same person(s), and are "of the same or similar character," occurred during "the same act or transaction," or are connected by "a common scheme or plan." If the requirements of ORS 132.560 are not met, and evidence of the improperly joined charge(s) is unlikely to have been admissible in a separate trial, the error is harmless if there is "little likelihood that the inadmissible evidence would [affect] the verdict in that separate trial." State v. Poston, 277 Or App 137, 145, (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

American Wholesale Products v. Allstate Ins. Co.

A liability provision that indemnifies a defendant from it’s own negligence must be clearly and unequivocally expressed. Estey v. MacKenzie Engineering Inc., 324 Or 372, 927 P2d 86 (1996).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

State v. Ipsen

Issue preclusion is permissible in a criminal proceeding when: (1) the issue is identical to that in a prior proceeding; (2) that issue was litigated and was "essential to a final decision on the merits;" (3) the precluded party had “a full and fair opportunity to be heard;” (4) the precluded party was party to-, or "in privity with a party to the earlier proceeding;" and (5) the court will give preclusive effect to the prior proceeding. State v. Gipson, 234 Or App 316, 320-321 (2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Ipsen

In determining whether an individual intended to abandon property, a court will weigh: (1) if defendant was separated from the property because of illegal police intrusion, State v. Bernabo, 224 Or App 379, 387 (2008); (2) if defendant left the property in a public area, id.; (3) if defendant intentionally hid the property, id. at 388; (4) if defendant left the property under circumstances where someone will likely inspect it upon discovery, State v. Belcher, 89 Or App 401, 404 (1988); (5) if defendant placed the property in plain view, State v. Brown, 348 Or 293, 300 (2010); and (6) if defendant gave up his right to "control the disposition of the property." id. at 304.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. M.M.A.

In order to prove criminal liability under ORS 163.165(1)(e), the state must prove the defendant either directly inflicted physical injury, or “engaged in conduct so extensively intertwined with infliction of the injury that such conduct can be found to have produced the injury.” State v. Pine, 336 Or 194, 201, 82, P3d 130 (2003).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Roman

When deciding whether to provide a jury with Uniform Jury Instruction 1029, the “witness-false-in-part” instruction, a court must “determine, from all the testimony, whether or not there has been sufficient evidence for the jury to decide that at least one witness consciously testified falsely.” Ireland v. Mitchell, 226 Or 286, 293. It is permissible to give the instruction based on contradictory physical evidence alone, if that evidence could cause a reasonable judge to determine that a jury could conclude, "that the defendant’s testimony did not ring true.” id. at 294.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Schrepfer

Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution provides two avenues for law enforcement's response to a suspect's invocation of their right against compelled self-incrimination: if the invocation is unequivocal, the questioning must stop immediately, State v. Boyd, 360 Or 302, 318 (2016); if equivocal, the officer must stop the interrogation to clarify whether the suspect intended to invoke this right. State v. Charboneau, 323 Or 38, 54 (1996).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Sippel

When an alternative theory is presented by the prosecution late in the case, the court must instruct the jury that a specific number of jurors must agree on what exact factual events constitute the crime if the prosecution presents more than one theory in its case. State v. Ashkins, 357 Or 642, 659, 357 P3d 490, (2015); State v. Teagues, 281 Or App 182, 194, 383 P3d 320 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Vaida v. Howells Custom Cabinets

The Court of Appeals will designate a prevailing party “only if the court reverses or substantially modifies the judgment.” ORAP 13.05.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

November 25 summaries

Benson v. Benson

Under Timm and Timm, 200 Or App 621, 629 (2005), before determining whether a spouse has rebutted the presumption of equal distribution, a court must: (1) identify the portion of the value of the property that is fairly traceable to the spouse’s premarital assets; and (2) identify the portion that is fairly attributable to improvements or appreciation made after the acquisition of the property.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Bibolet v. Employment Dept.

OAR 471-030-0125(5)(c) provides that a "blanket test" is one applied “uniformly to a specified group or class of employees.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Botofan-Miller and Miller

To prevail on a claim for change of custody, a parent must first prove that, after the previous judgment of custody, circumstances have changed to make the custodial parent unable to care for the child properly; then, it must be established that, based on the changed circumstances and relevant evidence, the change in custody is in the best interest of the child. Boldt and Boldt, 344 Or 1, 9 (2008).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Cunio v. Board of Parole

Under ORS 144.120(1)(a), the Board of Parole must conduct parole eligibility hearings for juvenile aggravated murderers, which entail reviewing “mitigating evidence submitted by an inmate during a prison term hearing even if that evidence is unrelated to the circumstances surrounding the criminal offenses." Calderon-Pacheco v. Board of Parole, 309 Or 454, 458-59 (1990).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. C.E.

“When a jurisdictional judgment . . . specifically identifies a potential cause underlying a jurisdictional finding, it can be ‘fairly implied’ that that identified cause will be a referent for measuring the parent’s progress.” Dept. of Human Services v. M. M. B., 253 Or App 431, 440 rev den, 353 Or 280 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Dept. of Human Services v. C. T.

For testimony to be considered helpful, under OEC 702, “the subject of the testimony must be within the expert’s field, the witness must be qualified, and the foundation for the opinion must intelligibly relate the testimony to the facts.” State v. Brown, 297 OR 404, 409, 687 P2d 751 (1984).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Dept. of Human Services v. H. F. E.

“To be ‘plain’ the error must (1) be an error of law; (2) be obvious, meaning that the legal point is not reasonable in dispute; and (3) appear on the record.” ORAP 5.45(1); State v. Vanornum, 354 OR 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Fenner v. Fenner

"No-contest provisions are valid and enforceable," but should be read narrowly using the express terms contained therein. Frakes v. Nay, 254 Or App 236, 247-248 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trusts and Estates

J.M. v. Oregon Youth Authority

“The only federal court that controls over the Oregon Supreme Court on matters of federal law is the United States Supreme Court.” State v. Moyle, 299 Or 691, 707, 705 P2d 740 (1985). State supreme courts are binding authority on lower state courts when interpreting federal laws. ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 US 605, 617, 109 S Ct 2037, 104 L Ed 2d 696 (1989).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Nathan v. Dept. of Human Services

In analyzing the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, a court asks whether the facts allege a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 US 223, 232 (2009).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Qualified Immunity

Oatney v. Kelly

“[A] trial counsel perform[s] inadequately [when they] fail to move to suppress [evidence]…used in violation of [an] immunity promised by [a] district attorney.” Oatney v. Premo, 275 Or App 185, 187 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Schutz v. La Costita III, Inc.

A “complete denial a previous right to claim under the common law by ORS 471.565(1) violated the remedy clause,” Oregon Constitution. Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or 168, 219 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Coates

ORS 161.635(1) provides that a defendant cannot be ordered to pay more than $6,250 fine for a Class A misdemeanor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Johnson

Under OEC 403, "relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger or unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Powell

A warrantless search is per se invalid, unless it falls into one of the clearly defined warrant requirement exceptions. State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177, 149 P3d 1155 (2006).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Sepulveda

“An officer confronted with safety concerns may handcuff a person without converting the stop into an arrest, but the stop is converted into an arrest if the officer continues to use force to restrain the person after the officer’s safety concerns have dissipated.” State v. Hebrard, 244 Or App 593, 598, 260 P3d 759 (2011). After an officer has stopped and handcuffed a person for officer safety, the officer needs probable cause to further detain and search the person. ORS 131.005(1); State v. Sepulveda, 288 Or App 632, 641 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Wolf

A defendant may "raise the defense of self-defense" by either (1) providing the state with a pre-trial, written notice; or (2) by the provision of "affirmative evidence by a defense witness in the defendant’s case in chief.” Once the defense of self-defense has been properly raised, the state is burdened with disproving the application of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. ORS 161.055(3); State v. Boyce, 120 Or App 299, 305-306 (1993).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Trail v. Haney

Under ORS 18.005(13), a limited judgment must fit into certain categories, one being “a judgment entered under ORCP 67 B or 67 G.” In order to apply 67 B, “the court must have determined a ‘claim.’ [A] motion for sanctions under ORCP 46 D does not constitute a claim within the meaning of ORCP 67;” therefore, sanctions under ORCP 47 are not appealable. Baugh v. Bryant Limited Partnerships, 98 Or App 419, 423 779 P2d 1071 (1989)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc.

Under Horton v. OHSU, for a statutorily substituted remedy under ORS 31.710(1) to be “substantial” as required by the remedy clause in Article I, section 10 of the Oregon Constitution, the remedy need not restore all damages that the plaintiff sustained to pass constitutional muster; however, a remedy that is only a “paltry fraction” of the damages the plaintiff sustained will unlikely be sufficient.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Chief Aircraft, Inc. v. Grill

To determine whether a defamatory statement that involves a matter of public concern is protected by the First Amendment, the court must make a determination that “a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the statement implies an assertion of objective fact.” That determination is based off a three-part test: (1) whether the general tone of the publication as a whole “negates the impression that the defendant was asserting an objective fact;” (2) whether the defendant’s own language (e.g. figurative or hyperbolic) “negates that impression;” and (3) “whether the statement at issue is susceptible of being proved true or false.” Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or 706, 718-22, 369 P3d 1117 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Sherertz v. Brownstein Rask

When considering the provision of a particular jury instruction, "[e]verything which is reasonably capable of confusing or misleading the jury should be avoided." Williams et al. v. Portland Gen. Elec., 195 Or 597, 610 (1952). A jury instruction will not be reversed if there is “little likelihood” that the jury was affected by the error; but if there is “some” or “significant” likelihood, then the jury instruction must be reversed. Purdy v. Deere and Company, 355 Or 204, 226 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Erickson

Under ORS 164.015, theft is committed when a person “with intent to deprive another of property, takes such property from an owner.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Husk

Under ORS 811.370, a motorist must drive exclusively in a single lane unless there is a valid reason (e.g. a road hazard) that “makes it impracticable,” or he is attempting to switch lanes but is confirming it is safe to do so. State v. McBroom, 179 Or App 120, 125-26, 39 P3d 226 (2002).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Traffic Infractions

State v. Williams

A defendant may invoke his right to proceed without representation midtrial, however, a court is permitted to deny the motion if it could result in disruption or delay. State v. Hightower, 361 Or 412, 418, 393 P3d 224 (2017). The record must show that “the trial court actually weighed the relevant competing interests involved.” Id at 421.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Zuniga

ORS 137.103(4)(a) defines as a "victim," for the purposes of restitution awards, "[t]he person or decedent against whom the defendant committed the criminal offense, if the court determines that the person or decedent has suffered or did suffer economic damages as a result of the offense."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law