Spencer Bailey

Oregon Supreme Court (5 summaries)

Couey v. Atkins

ORS 14.175 allows for moot cases to be deemed justiciable if the plaintiff meets all three necessary elements as defined within the statute. The statute was within the power of the legislature to pass because it did not go beyond the constitutional limitations placed on them in determining the justiciability of cases.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Wilson

Though truth vouching testimony must be stricken sua sponte by the trial court, testimony regarding the manner in which a victim communicates information is admissible because it is most closely related to the victim’s demeanor and not related to whether the witness in fact believed the victim testimony.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Jenkins v. Board of Parole and Post Prison Supervision

The 1999 amendments to ORS 144.335(3) did not alter the requirement of providing a substantial reason, under the substantial evidence review standard of scrutiny the Board of Parole is subjected to, for postponing the release of prison inmates.

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

Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc.

An ORCP 47 E affidavit which states an expert will testify to causation is sufficient to raise a question of fact and avoid summary judgment. ORS 30.920, Oregon's strict liability statute, does not apply to apply to service transactions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Department of Human Services v. S.M.

Under ORS 419B.372 and ORS 419B.376, the Department of Human Services has the legislative authority to immunize children while acting as the children’s legal custodian.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (43 summaries)

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

State v. Miles

To satisfy the subjective belief element of first-degree sexual abuse (ORS 164.245) the victim need only consider the area of their body that was touched to be one that is ordinarily to be touched by people who are intimately close to them. For a three year old, this included body parts where her parents would touch her such as her hips and legs.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Strye

A defendant does not need to admit to harmful acts in order for a jury to consider whether, if the defendant committed the alleged acts, that the defendant did so in self-defense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Moorehead v. TriMet

In a slip and fall negligence case, absent proof of an owner’s knowledge of a foreign substance on a floor, a plaintiff invitee’s action will fail. Without such proof, whether or not the foreign substance created an unreasonable risk of harm is not relevant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. McPhail

The defenses of self-defense and choice of evils require an imminence element to be satisfied. Imminence will be found when the proponent of the defense is faced with a direct threat of immediate injury at the time. Preemptively arming oneself to prevent violence at an unknown point in the future does not satisfy the imminence element.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Reeves

The law of “case doctrine” states that when a ruling has been made in a particular case by an appellate court, while it may be overruled in other cases, it is binding upon both the inferior court in any further proceedings in the same litigation and upon the appellate court itself in any subsequent appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Boardmaster Corp. v. Glass

ORS 479.820 does not allow a county to disconnect electrical service because a failure to obtain a permit is not necessarily a failure to comply with minimum safety standards. Therefore, a grant of summary judgment for a malpractice claim based on a contrary understanding of that statute is inappropriate.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Professional Responsibility

Hartwell v. Board of Parole

According to OAR 255-30-025(4), a prisoner does not have to choose between an assistant and another person speaking on their behalf at an exit interview hearing if the prisoner needs assistance communicating to the Board.

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

Sanchez v. State of Oregon

In a petition for post-conviction relief, a trial court has broad discretion in its control of court proceedings. Abuse of this discretion can only be found in instances where the control of the court proceedings was deemed to have been applied in a manner which prejudiced the petitioner.

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

State v. Paskar

It is a violation of Article I section 9 of the Oregon Constitution to obtain evidence through the exploitation of an unlawful search. Additionally, reasonable suspicion in regards to one crime does not provide officers with an excuse to extend a stop and conduct an investigation into a separate crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Hunt

When at an arraignment where the court has impermissibly adjudged a defendant's waiver of counsel, in which the defendant proceeds into a community service program under terms that she does not fully comprehend, the error is not harmless and a new arraignment must be provided for the defendant with the community service option still available to her.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Bautista

Under OEC 801(4)(a)(B), it is not an exception to hearsay if the motive to fabricate testimony arose before the prior consistent statement was made.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Dept. of Human Services v. A.S.-M.

In a hearing for the termination of parental rights, a guardian ad litem deemed to have been inappropriately appointed for a parent deprives the parent of the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. This runs afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution and creates a fundamentally unfair proceeding, despite any evidence tending to show the unfitness of the parent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Heyne / Yunke

In providing a search warrant, a reasonable magistrate may believe that marijuana and marijuana-related items will be found at a defendant’s residence when the defendant lists the residence on an expired medical-marijuana card after he is pulled over and found to possess a large amount of marijuana without proof of a current medical-marijuana card.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

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

Under ORS 419B.504, when a parent is addicted to drugs and that drug abuse is deemed to be seriously detrimental to the child, the result of continued use of drugs (even those when prescribed by doctors if obtained by “doctor shopping”) can be enough to lead a court to conclude that the conditions will not be changed in a reasonable period of time. This is especially true when the parent is considered by professionals to be in denial of their drug addiction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. M. U. L.

State v. Geist, does not allow for inadequate assistance of counsel to be raised for the first time on appeal in this scenario because T. L. held that ORS 419B.923 provides other remedies to challenge the adequacy of dependency counsel.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Kreft

Speech does not qualify as the kind of “behavior” necessary to satisfy the elements of ORS 166.025(1)(a) and the statute only encompasses acts of physical violence. Asking someone for the time is not aggressive enough to be deemed behavior that would be likely to produce the use of physical force by an objectively reasonable person under this statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Bridge City Fam. Med. Clinic v. Kent & Johnson, LLP

A term can become part of a contract even if someone does not expressly manifest assent to the specific term if the other party could reasonably have understood that term to have been accepted. Contracts can include both what has been stated and what is necessarily to be implied from what has been stated.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Godinez v. SAIF

An agency is entitled to deference when it makes a plausible interpretation of its own rule, even when the interpretation is made in the course of applying the rule, so long as it is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule or other source law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Hazlett

An expert witness who is a pharmacologist and an anesthesiologist is qualified to testify in regards to a defendant's ability to form criminal intent. A contradictory trial court determination on that issue would not prove to be harmless error for charges that require the state to prove that the defendant acted knowingly or intentionally.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Hostetler and Hostetler

ORS 107.105(1)(f) establishes a rebuttable presumption that spouses have contributed equally to marital property and asks the court to make just and proper property divisions in light of that presumption. ORCP 68 (C)(4)(g) states that a trial court is required to make attorney fee award findings only when a party makes a written request for them.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

In the Matter of the Marriage of Morgan and Morgan

OAR 137-050-0715(7)(b)(2012) states that in making a child support determination, a parent with a "verified disability" will have their income calculated as their actual income rather than their "presumed" income.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Nguyen

When determining whether a father has access to resources outside of his regular income, the court must make findings based on facts supported by evidence in the record and not merely on the testimony of the mother.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Davis and Davis

Under ORS 107.105, if the property at issue is a personal injury settlement, the equal contribution presumption is overcome when the injured spouse can prove that the other spouse did not have a part in the settlement and failed to claim damages for consortium.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Smith v. Board of Parole

Neither due process nor Oregon's APA require parole consideration hearings under ORS 144.228 to allow subpoenas for witnesses at the hearing.

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

State v. Kirkland

A trial court may conduct additional fact-finding relevant to the amount of a restitution during the sentencing phase of trial. However, a defendant can only be required to pay restitution for conduct which he was convicted of or admitted to doing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

State v. Menefee

In order to waive the right to counsel, a defendant must express clear intent to do so, under the specific circumstances of the particular case. However, when someone chooses to represent themselves and they are thrown out of court for being disruptive, the defendant has not automatically waived their overall right to representation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

McDonald v. MacDonald

When an attorney fee agreement includes language that allows for a court to determine particular statutory factors in determining attorney legal fees, an appeal arising from an issue with an adverse ruling by the court in regards to those legal fees will not be considered to have been preserved.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

P.M.H. v. Landolt

To satisfy ORS 30.866, it is not sufficient to prove that someone is in reasonable objective apprehension of their or their family’s personal safety when someone sends letters or gifts to a child through third parties at their school.

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

State v. Nelson

Under ORS 166.023(1), a defendant who responds to a friend’s social network account about an emergency at a school is not considered to have initiated or circulated a report. Also, such behavior does not qualify as having knowingly done so.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

W.M. v. Muck

Under ORS 30.866(3), a child overhearing a conversation she assumes to be about her father in an abstract though unpleasant way is not sufficient to subjectively place her in apprehension of her father’s safety when the comment was made during a telephone call to someone else, on the declarant’s property, while not attempting to contact or even look at the child.

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

State v. Welsh

Under ORS 137.123(5), consecutive sentences must only be granted for convictions arising out of continuous and uninterrupted courses of conduct if the court finds that the violation was not merely an incidental violation, but actually an indication of defendant’s willingness to commit a separate crime, or that the offense created a risk of causing greater harm or injury to the victim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Garrison

Under OEC 403 and OEC 404, character evidence admitted will not be considered to be an abuse of a trial courts discretion where it is deemed to have little prejudicial effect and the jury has been offered a curative jury instruction. A curative instruction will be assumed to be followed by the jury unless there is an “overwhelming possibility” that the jury was incapable of following it.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Chen

Under ORS 475.860, a reasonable jury could convict a defendant on a charge of delivery of marijuana when presented with evidence of their frequent presence at a grow operation, transportation of marijuana trimmings, and large amounts of drugs on the property. These factors considered cumulatively create a logical inference that a defendant intends to sell the marijuana, which constitutes delivery.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Department of Human Services v. H.H.

When one parent, who otherwise appears to be a fit parent, allows their children to be home alone with a parent who has caused harm to a child, the totality of the circumstances tend to show that there will be a reasonable likelihood of additional harm to the child.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Housing Authority of Jackson County v. City of Medford

A petition, the resolution of which would not have a practical effect on either party to it, must be dismissed for being not being justiciable, and therefore moot.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Oregon v. Hunt

ORS 131.615. The reasonable suspicion of an officer to ask someone for identification and run a warrant check reasonably related to an investigation is justified if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that that person has committed a crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Goldman

If nonappearance on a citation constitutes "mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect" under ORS 153.820(7), an individual is relieved from the doubling of fines.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Field v. Coursey

As determined by ORAP 5.45(1), generally no argument of error may be asserted in an appellate court that has not been preserved in the lower court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Cook

Erroneous admission of hearsay evidence is unacceptable only when the error is harmful in that it has a possible influence on the verdict rendered. When the erroneously admitted hearsay evidence is central to the parties’ theory of the case and their credibility, the error will be considered harmful and influential to the rendered verdict.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Wright v. Nooth

In regards to findings of fact, such as with a defendant’s waiver to testify on their own behalf, the Appellate Court will defer to the post-conviction court’s records. Additionally, in order to find error in counsel’s decision not to object to testimony, the testimony must have been of a kind that would have likely provided evidence that would have altered the outcome of the proceeding.

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

State v. Ashkins

A jury instruction requiring all jurors to agree on which occurrence constituted a crime is not required when the evidence shows multiple occurrences of the offense and does not give jurors the ability to factually distinguish one occurrence from another in a manner that could lead to differing conclusions about the commission of the crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Fox

Under ORS 162.005(2), a member of the Oregon National Guard qualifies as a public servant for the purposes of a sexual coercion charge.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law