Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLC
Substantive arguments must be made against a theory on which the pleadings have been implicitly amended in order to preserve such arguments for appeal. Under Bates v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 362 Or, 337 (2018), rights under a contract are not “money or property” for the purposes of ORS 124.110(1)(b). Under Church v. Woods, 190 Or.App. 112 (2003) and Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. Chase Gardens, Inc., 328 Or. 487 (1999), “improper motive” under ORS 124.110(1)(a) requires that the actor’s “purpose must be to inflict injury on the plaintiff ‘as such.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Lewis
The court “[r]eviews the denial of an Motion for Judgment of Acquittal for whether a rational fact-finder could find, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and making reasonable inferences and credibility choices, that the state proved every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Davis, 261 Or App 38, 39, (2014). Reasonable inferences are permissible; mere speculation is not. State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460, 467, (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Ybarra v. Dominguez Family Enterprises, Inc.
Cases determining “fair value” under dissenter’s rights statute inform the meaning of “fair value” for purposes of ORS 60.952(5). The appropriateness of applying marketability or minority discount to determination of fair value “necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case.”
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Barrett v. Bd. of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
“In reviewing a rule challenge we may declare the rule invalid only if we conclude that it violates the constitutional provision, exceeds the statutory authority of the agency that adopted the rule, or was adopted without complying with rulemaking procedures.” Assn. of Acupuncture v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 260 Or App 676 P3d 575 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Cowles v. Flormoe-Cowles
If a court finds a party in remedial contempt it must be supported by a specific finding of willfulness. Southworth and Southworth, 113 Or App 607, 610 (1991), rev den, 314 Or 574 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Lewis v. Varde
“On petition of a person showing an agreement to arbitrate and alleging another person’s refusal to arbitrate under the agreement: (b) If the refusing party opposes the petition, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue and order the parties to arbitrate unless it finds that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate.”
ORS 36.625(1).
If the parties to an arbitration agreement have not determined a method for appointing an arbitrator, “the court, on the petition of a party to the arbitration proceeding, shall appoint the arbitrator.” ORS 36.645(1).
- Arbitration
State v. C.J.
Under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C), the court “[m]ay order commitment of the person with mental illness to the Oregon Health Authority for treatment if” they find the person has a mental illness and institutional treatment is in their best interest. ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A) explains that “a person with mental illness” means a person who, because of a mental disorder, is dangerous to self or others.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Freeborn v. Dow
“[T]he doctrine of merger does not categorically apply when [a] deed constitutes only part performance of a preexisting contract.”
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Ramos v. Potkowksi
“Boundary-by-agreement is a common law doctrine with three elements; (1) There must have been an initial and mutual uncertainty about the true location of the boundary; (2) There must have been a resolution to the uncertainty by either an express or implied agreement mutually agreed upon by both parties to recognize the boundary line permanently; and (3) Evidence of the agreement by subsequent action by parties such as a written agreement, or occupying the property up to the borderline in the case of an oral agreement.” Powers Ranch Company v. Plum Creek Marketing, 243 Or App 371 (2011).”
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Rinne v. Matteucci
Under ORS 34.620, habeas corpus is not an alternative remedy to judicial review by which a person may directly challenge an order, judgment, or process of a competent tribunal.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
State v. Cuffy
To impeach by contradiction, it is necessary to state a precise fact statement to which the rebuttal evidence contradicts. State v. Hayes, 117 Or App 202, 205-06 (1992), rev den, 316 Or 528 (1993). The “state [is] entitled to introduce contradictory testimony [that] relate[s] to the circumstances of the crime.” State v. Gibson, 338 Or 560, 572 cert den, 546 US 1044 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Didlot
“[C]onfessions made by a defendant in custody that were induced by the influence of hope or fear, applied by a public officer having the prisoner in his charge, are inadmissible against the defendant.” State v. Jackson, 364 Or 1, 21 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant is induced if “the defendant has been told something that communicates the idea of a temporal benefit or disadvantage attached to confessing” State v. Pryor, 309 Or App 12, 19 (quoting State v. Chavez-Meza, 301 Or App 373, 387). Under State v. Center, a promise of help need not be tied to prosecutorial leniency; rather, a promise of some benefit, by itself, could suffice to improperly compel a confession. 314 Or App 813, 823 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Johnson
“An encounter rises to a seizure when (1) a law enforcement officer intentionally and significantly interferes with an individual’s liberty or freedom of movement, or (2) a reasonable person under the totality of circumstances would believe that his or her liberty or freedom of movement has been significantly restricted.” State v. Ashbuagh, 349 Or 297 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Orman
Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution protects individuals’ rights against unreasonable searches or seizures. When an encounter advances from a conversation to the point of an investigatory stop, and thus a seizure of the individual, the stop must be accompanied by reasonable suspicion. State v. Backstrand, 354 Or 392, 399 (2013) (citing State v. Fair, 353 Or 588, 593-94 (2013)). Absent reasonable suspicion, a stop is unlawful, and all evidence discovered as a result of the unlawful police action is presumptively tainted by the violation and must be suppressed. State v. Newton, 286 Or App 274, 288 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Thier
Under Article I, section 9, a seizure occurs when “(1) a law enforcement officer intentionally and significantly interferes with an individual’s liberty or freedom of movement; or (2) a reasonable person, under the totality of the circumstances, would believe that his or her liberty or freedom of movement has been significantly restricted.” State v. Reyes-Herrera, 369 Or 54, 58 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Urban Renewal Comm. of Oregon City v. Williams
“[T]he validity of local action depends, first, on whether it is authorized by the local charter or by a statute, or if taken by initiative, whether it qualifies as ‘local, special (or) municipal legislation’ under [A]rticle IV, section 1(5); second, on whether it contravenes state or federal law.” La Grande/Astoria v. PERB, 281 Or 137, 142, 284 Or 173 (1978). A new city charter amendment contravenes state law when the local rule is incompatible with the legislative policy. Id. If the local rule is incompatible with the legislative policy, the local rule is preempted.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Winamaki v. Umpqua Bank
“A contract term is ambiguous if, when examined in the context of the contract as a whole and the circumstances of contract formation, it is susceptible to more than one plausible interpretation.” Adair Homes, Inc. v. Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue, LLP, 262 Or App 273, 277, (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Sullivan
"To determine whether an officer's belief was objectively reasonable, we consider the totality of the circumstances presented to the officer and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those circumstances. State v. Keller, 280 Or. App. 249, 253 (2016). For traffic infractions, an officer's subjective belief is objectively reasonable, "if...the facts as the officer perceived them actually satisfy the elements of a traffic infraction." State v. Tiffin, 202 Or. App. 199, 204 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure