Erin Barker

Oregon Court of Appeals (22 summaries)

State v. TWW

“Whether a person is a danger to others is determined by his condition at the time of the hearing as understood in the context of his history.” State v. L.R., 283 Or App 618, 625, 391 P3d 880 (2017). In order to authorize involuntary commitment based on a person’s inability to meet his basic needs as a result of a mental disorder, the evidence must show that it is unlikely the person will survive in near short term. State v. S.R., 267 Or App 618, 619, 341 P3d 160 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Adamson v. Oregon Health Authority

In ruling on an administrative rule challenge, a court must assess whether the agency had the authority to enact the form rule being disputed. If the rule is in accordance with the agency's basic authority, the court must determine whether that rule “departed from a legal standard expressed or implied in the particular law being administered, or contravened some other applicable statute.” Nay v. Dept. of Human Services, 360 Or 668, 680-81 (2016); Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Dept. of Human Res., 297 Or 562, 565 (1984).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Campbell

The automobile exception under Article 1 section 9 of the Oregon Constitution applies if the automobile is mobile when officers initially encounter the automobile in connection with a crime and the officers have "probable cause to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime." State v. Andersen, 361 Or 187, 189 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Harryman v. Fred Meyer, Inc.

ORS 31.180(1) provides a “complete defense in any civil action for personal injury” if the claimant was injured while “engaged in conduct that at the time would constitute . . . a Class B felony and that felonious conduct was a substantial factor contributing to the injury.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

S. H.

Per ORS 419B.366(5), a motion for guardianship may be granted only if a juvenile court has "approved a plan of guardianship under ORS 419B.476."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Hartley

The hearsay exception under OEC 801(4)(a)(C) does not apply to identifications that “merely follow a declarant’s perception of the person”, but “must result from” the perception. Legislative Commentary to OEC 801, reprinted in Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Oregon Evidence § 801.02[2], 712, 713 (6th ed 2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Oregon Trucking Assns. v. Dept. of Transportation

Under ORS 366.395(1) the Department of Transportation may sell property that is, in the opinion of the department, no longer needed, required, or useful for department purposes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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

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. 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

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

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 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