Alexander Loop, LLC v. City of Eugene
To determine if a contract provision is ambiguous and thereby not suitable for summary judgment, the court first looks to the text of the disputed provision and if still ambiguous, it examines extrinsic evidence; if still ambiguous, the court looks to appropriate maxims of construction. Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358, 937 P2d 1019 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Boatfield and Boatfield
"The general rules is that the amount of a support award is not justified if it is 'outside' the 'range of reasonableness by a significant enough margin so as not to be just and equitable in the totality of pertinent circumstances.'" Cullen and Cullen, 223 Or App 183, 194, 194 P3d 866 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Bohanan v Amsberry
"For petitioners who are 'unable to pay the expenses of a proceeding,' ORS 138.590 creates an exception to the requirement under ORS 138.560(1) that the filing fee be paid at the time the petition is filed. ORS 138.590(1), (8). In that circumstance, 'all court fees in the circuit court' other than the filing fee are waived; the filing fee, however, 'is not waived but may be drawn from, or charged against, the petitioner's trust account if the petitioner is an inmate in a correctional facility.'" ORS 138.590(8)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Dept. of Human Services v. M. A. H.
Where . . . the children 'have special needs and are healthily bonded to their foster parents, the issue is . . . whether the parent has waited too long to reform in light of the child’s pressing needs.'” State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. A. L. S., 228 Or App 700, 723, 209 P3d 817, rev den, 347 Or 43 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Randle and Randle
“Upon motion of a party for an order to show cause why a judgment of separation should not be converted to a judgment of dissolution and after service of notice to the other party at least 30 days before the scheduled hearing, the court may, within two years after the entry of a judgment of separation, convert a judgment of separation into a judgment of dissolution of the marriage.” ORS 107.465(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Fudge
When a defendant shows, on the record, that they have an intellectual disability, the trial court must expressly consider the “constitutional implications” the disability may have in the determination of a constitutionally just penalty. State v. Ryan, 361 Or 602, 624, 396 P3d 867 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Moravek
The trial court [has] an obligation to instruct the jury on passive resistance only if it is either an element of interfering with a police officer, State v. Gray, 261 Or App 121, 129, 322 P3d 1094 (2014), or a defense other than an affirmative defense that the defendant ‘raised’ at trial.State v. Abram, 273 Or App 449, 456, 359 P3d 431 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Partain
“Evidentiary error is not presumed to be prejudicial, OEC 103(1), and we will affirm despite an evidentiary error if there is ‘little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict.’” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Walton
Pursuant to ORAP 5.45(1), the court has the “discretionary authority to review an unpreserved error that is plain . . . obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and apparent on the face of the record.”
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Bentley v. Multnomah County Sheriff's Office
“If the petitioner seeks relief from the bar on possessing or purchasing a firearm, relief shall be granted when the petitioner demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner does not pose a threat to the safety of the public or the petitioner.” ORS 166.274(7).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Bush and Bush
“Although we exercise our discretion to review de novo only in exceptional cases, ORAP 5.40(8)(c), 'a lower court’s reliance on a crucial finding that does not comport with the evidence in the record can be a reason to exercise our discretion.'” Morgan and Morgan, 269 Or App 156, 159, 344 P3d 81 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia County
“[W]hen a local government takes a reasons exception, ‘plan and zone designations must limit the uses, density, public facilities and services, and activities to only those that are justified in the exception.’” OAR 660-004-0018(4)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Frazier v. State of Oregon
“The court’s ‘authority to grant relief is not entirely constrained by the precise manner in which a petitioner alleges a claim for relief’ as it extends ‘to matters within the scope of the pleaded claims.’” Ogle v. Nooth, 292 Or App 387, 388, 424 P3d 759 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Perez v. Cain
“In deciding if a claim may be heard on appeal, the court reviews claims on a case-by-case basis to determine if they reasonably could have been anticipated so as to have been raised and settled earlier.” Verduzco v. State of Oregon, 357 Or 553, 571 (2015) (quoting Long v. Armenakis, 166 Or App 94, 101, 999 P2d 461 (2000)).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State ex rel Val Hoyle v. City of Grants Pass
"ORS 652.060(1) provides fire departments with a ‘safe harbor,’ under which an employer is 'deemed to have complied with [ORS 652.060(1)] and ORS 652.070 if the hours of regular duty required of firefighters employed by it an average not more than [72 or 56] hours a week over each quarter of the fiscal year.'” (Emphasis added). Additionally, "ORS 652.070(1) requires employers to 'put into effect and maintain a schedule of working hours' that complies with ORS 652.060 . . . [i]f an employer fails to do so, it must pay overtime 'to every regularly employed firefighter as additional pay for every hour of regular duty required of and performed by the firefighter over and above the average hours established by ORS 652.060."
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Hunt
“An adverse inference of guilt is likely when the testimony is not merely incidental and when nothing directs the jury’s focus away from it.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Kamph
“[T]he ‘critical question’ that must be asked in determining whether the [dog] sniff violates the Fourth Amendment is whether the sniff ‘adds time to’ the [traffic] stop.” State v. Rosales, 291 Or. App. 762, 769, 423 P3d 112 (2018) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1616, 191 L. Ed. 2d 492 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Skillicorn
"The 'basic idea' behind that theory of relevance [the doctrine of chances] is 'the proposition that multiple instances of similar conduct are unlikely to occur accidentally." State v. Tena, 362 Or 514, 524, 412 P3d 175 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Brumwell v. Premo
"Under Article I, section 11, '[t]o demonstrate that he is entitled to post-conviction relief, petitioner must show that counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and that petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel's inadequacy.'" Sparks v. Premo, 289 Or App 159, 169, 408 P3d 276 (2017), rev den, 363 Or 119, cert den, ___ US ___, 139 S Ct 569 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Colton and Colton
Under ORAP 5.45(1), "except for discretionary plain error review . . . appellate court will not consider claim of error that was not preserved in lower court."
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Contreras v. Board of Parole
“Substantial reason *** requires the board to provide ‘some kind of an explanation connecting the facts of the case and the result reached.’” Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 188, 335 P3d 828 (2014). Additionally, “if the board’s reasoning is not obvious, its order *** must at least set for the bases for its inferences.” Mendacino v. Board of Parole, 287 Or App 822, 837, 404 P3d 1048 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Joling and Joling
"In summary, we hold that courts, when dealing with the property disputes of [partners] who have been living together in a non-marital domestic relationship, should distribute property based upon the express or implied contract of those parties." Beal and Beal, 282 Or 115, 122-23, 577 P2d 507 (1978).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Marsh v. SAIF
“’To prevail on a new or omitted condition claim under ORS 656.267, claimants are required to establish, with medical evidence, the actual existence of the condition,’ and that proof of ‘mere symptoms’ is insufficient.” De Los-Santos v. Si Pac Enterprises, Inc., 278 Or app 254, 257, 373 P3d 1274 (2016). “OAR 436-060-0025(5)(a)(A) requires the ‘average weekly wage’ be calculated using the ‘actual weeks of employment.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Rinne v. PSRB
"An assertion of a finding of fact as part of an explanation for disregarding evidence is subject to attack if the fact relied upon is not, itself, supported by substantial evidence." Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or 292, 296, 787 P2d 884 (1990). "The court shall set aside or remand the order if the court finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the record." See ORS 183.482(8)(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
T. J. N. v. Schweitzer
In order to acquire an SPO, “a petitioner must show by preponderance of the evidence, that ‘(a) the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly engages in repeated and unwanted contact with the other person or a member of that person’s immediate family or household thereby alarming or coercing the other person; (b) it is objectively reasonable for a person in the victim’s situation to have been alarmed or coerced by the contact; and (c) the repeated and unwanted contact causes the victim reasonable apprehension regarding the personal safety of the victim or a member of the victim’s immediate family or household.’” ORS. 30.866(7); ORS. 30.866(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
Allianz Global Risks v. ACE Property & Casualty Ins. Co.
Purchasers may be responsible for the liabilities of corporations they buy if they “expressly or impliedly agree to assume” them. Erikson v. Grande Ronde Lbr. Co., 162 Or. 556, 568, 92 P2d 170 (1939).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Dept. of Human Services v. G. C. P.
“A direct comment on the credibility of a witness or a statement that is ‘tantamount’ to stating that another witness is truthful is not admissible, even if it is offered as part of a discussion of an admissible medical diagnosis.” State v. Beauvais, 357 Or 524, 543, 354 P3d 680 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Pelican Bay v. Western Timber
To constitute a trade secret under ORS 646.461(4), information must both (1) gain value because it is not generally known and (2) be the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain that secrecy. Kaib’s Roving R.PH. Agency, Inc. v. Smith, 237 Or App 96, 103, 239 P3d 247 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
State v. Williams
If the officer's questions or “request for consent was ‘reasonably related’ to the purpose of the detention, then the request did not extend the stop in violation of Article I, section 9.” State v. Pichardo, 360 Or 754, 759 (2017).
Western Radio Services Co. v. Verizon Wireless, LLC.
In order to “establish a claim for trespass to chattels or conversion, a party must show an actual ownership interest in and the right to control the disputed property.” Mustola v.Toddy, 253 Or 658, 663 456 P2d 1004 (1969).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Berg v. Benton
“The pendency of an appeal does not *** prevent a judgment from operating as res judicata or collateral estoppel.” Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo v. Wakehouse Motors, 46 Or App 199, 207, 611 P2d 658, rev den, 289 Or 373 (1980).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Cox v. Premo
"When a petitioner seeks to establish that counsel failed to exercise reasonable skill and judgment, what constitutes adequate performance is fact-specific and dependent on the 'nature and complexity of the case.'" Richardson v. Belleque, 362 Or 236, 255, 406 P3d 1074 (2017) (quoting Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 701, 399 P3d 431 (2017)).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Linn County v. Brown
Constitutional amendments are interpreted within the same framework as statutes, which requires looking at the text, context, and legislative history of the amendment to determine the voters' intent. State v. Sagdal, 356 Or 639, 642-43, 343 P3d 226 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Slagle
"Where a defendant pleads guilty or no contest to committing crimes 'on or between' a range of dates as alleged in the charging instrument, the state can prove that the defendant committed the offense on any of the dates alleged because the defendant, 'by failing to limit or qualify his pleas, assent[s] to the broadest construction of his pleas.'" Hibbard v. Board of Parole, 144 Or App 82, 87-88 925 P2d 910 (1996), vac'd on other grounds, 327 Or 594, 965 P2d 1022 (1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Minor
Under ORS 137.106(1)(a), “the State is free to seek restitution damages, and the defendant is free to oppose them.” State v. Heisser, 350 Or 12, 27, 249 P3d 113 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies