Spencer Bailly

Oregon Supreme Court (2 summaries)

State v. Eastep

Under ORS 164.135, to qualify as a “vehicle” under the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle statute, the vehicle need not be in running order. However, it must be “capable of operation,” that is, not be completely disassembled or “wrecked.” State v. Macomber, 269 Or 58 (1974).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Moore

A trial court may declare a mistrial, in spite of double jeopardy, if there is a "manifest necessity" to do so.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Oregon Court of Appeals (37 summaries)

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

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. 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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

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. 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. 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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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. Scott

If a defendant fails to make an argument at the trial court that they are now making on appeal, the appellate court can decline to review that argument on the basis that is not preserved.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims

The duty of an insurer to defend the insured against claims will be determined by comparing the insurance contract to the complaint under the Four Corners approach to contract interpretation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Wels v. Hippe

To establish that the use of an existing road is adverse, a plaintiff must show that (1) the use of the road interfered with the owner's’ use of the road or (2) that the use of the road was undertaken under a claim of right, of which the owners were aware.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

J.D. vs. S.K

Under OEC 403, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

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

State v. S.P.

ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A),(B) requires that in involuntary civil commitment proceedings, the state is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that a person is mentally ill and that, because of the illness, the person is a danger to self, a danger to others, or unable to meet the person’s own basic needs.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Browning

For the purposes of ORS 163.205(1)(b)(D) (criminal mistreatment in the first degree), the term “take” applies to the exercise of dominion or control over property for one’s own use or the use of a third person, regardless of whether the dominion or control is intended to be temporary or permanent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Henley

When determining admissibility of expert testimony, the Brown/Key standard applies to qualifying an expert when “the expert’s testimony ‘purported to draw its convincing force from principles of science.’”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Lopez v. SAIF Corp

Under ORS 656.265, there is no requirement that the claimant’s “good cause” explanation needs to be verified by medical evidence. Rather, it is for the board to decide whether it is persuaded by the totality of evidence that is in the record, whether or not that record includes medical evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Stull

Under the standard set out in State v. Moore, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a party’s request for a continuance to secure the appearance of a witness who is unable or fails to appear at trial unless that party demonstrates that “(1) the witness can be produced; and (2) if produced, the witness would testify about a material fact.”

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

State v. Norris

Under ORS 137.123(5)(a), imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment for two counts of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle is appropriate when the record contains "discrete facts" that support an inference that the defendant was willing to commit more than one criminal offense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Zsarko v. Angelozzi

Under ORS 138.510(3), absent an appeal, the statute of limitations period for a petition for post-conviction relief is two years, and begins to run "upon entry of a judgment or order of conviction."

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

Husk v. Adelman

Under ORS 109.119(3)(b), the courts do not have the authority to grant rights outside of “visitation or contact rights.” An order to compel a legal parent to provide a non-custodial non-parent timely access to a child’s medical and education records is outside of the scope of ORS 109.119(3)(b)., and consequently, any such order is invalid, and any prior mediated agreement that grants rights outside those found in ORS 109.119(3)(b) is unenforceable by the courts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Thornburgh Resort Co., LLC v. Loyal Land, LLC

Under ORS 36.620(2), the existence of a waiver is a condition precedent to arbitrability. Consequently, ORS 36.620(3) requires that the determination of whether or not the right to arbitrate has been waived be made by an arbitrator, not by the courts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration