Emily Crocker

Oregon Supreme Court (6 summaries)

State v. Lopes

Trial courts have the authority to order hospitals to involuntarily medicate defendants for the purpose of restoring trial competency so long as the order complies with due process.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Schleiss v. SAIF

Accelerated aging and a mild degenerative condition are not legally cognizable preexisting conditions, and do not trigger apportionment of claimant's impairment in a true combined condition claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Phillips

At least 10 jurors must agree on each legislatively-defined element of a crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Vanornum

ORCP 59 H, which provides that "a party may not obtain review on appeal" of an asserted error in giving or failing to give an instruction unless the party objected in a specified manner, does not control preservation of instructional error for purposes of appellate court review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Engweiler v. Persson

ORS 421.121 permits reduction of terms of incarceration by earned-time credits; ORS 144.125 requires prerelease functions prior to entitlement to habeas corpus relief.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Ann Sacks Tile and Stone, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over the case because taxpayers filed a notice of appeal using electronic service, which was contrary to ORCP 9 G.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Oregon Court of Appeals (42 summaries)

Dept. of Human Services v. J.M.

In a permanency hearing, evidence relating to a child's original unexplained injury is not irrelevant as an attack on DHS's jurisdiction because it may be probative in the remedial steps parents must make toward reunification.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Wilson v. Gutierrez

A benefit that is conferred not as a gift but as expected substituted payment can support a finding of unjust enrichment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Emerson v. Kusano

In the case of mutual mistake as to policy limits in a settlement agreement, in absence of clear and convincing evidence that the parties would have agreed to the actual policy limits, rather than what they mistakenly believed them to be, there is no antecedent agreement, and there is nothing to which the contract may be reformed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC

LCDC had not adequately explained why inclusion of certain land in a UGB was supported by substantial reason and consistent with Statewide Land Use Planning Goals 9 and 14 and other rules.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Delgado v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N. A., Inc.

"Employers" under ORS 653.010(3) may be liable for penalty wages on summary judgment under ORCP 61 B.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

DHS v. J.G.

When a juvenile court makes an "active efforts" finding at a permanency hearing in which it changes an Indian child's permanency plan from return to parent to establishment of a durable guardianship, section 1912(d) of ICWA does not require the juvenile court to renew that "active efforts" finding at a later proceeding in which the court effects that guardianship placement under ORS 419B.366

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Martin

For an arrest for unlawful prostitution procurement activity (UPPA), the officer must have a substantial objective basis for believing that, more likely than not, the defendant had engaged in conduct constituting a substantial step in furtherance of an act of prostitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Fitzhugh

A "dependent person" under ORS 163.205(2)(b) is not limited to a person suffering from permanent or enduring disabilities.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Cejas Commercial Interiors, Inc., v. Jorge Torres-Lizama

The right-to-control test should be used to define the employment relationship in terms of direction and control or a contractual relationship.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

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

A voluntarily untreated mental illness that is seriously detrimental to the child, may support a finding of parental unfitness and termination.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. R.L.F.

For DHS to take jurisdiction of a child under 419B.100(1)(c), it must establish a current risk of serious loss or injury to the child.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Wilson v. Dept. of Corrections

OAR 291-131-0035 is not overbroad, does not exceed Department authority, and is therefore valid.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Peterson

Determining whether a stop has been unlawfully extended is done by a totality of the circumstances analysis.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Teixeira

For purposes of OAR 213-008-0002(1)(b)(G), a "victim" is a person who is directly, immediately, and exclusively injured by the commission of the crime--not a person injured only by subsequent, additional criminal conduct.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Smith v. TRCI

A correctional facility's housing unit guidelines which are not "mere applications" of existing rules, are rules subject to APA rulemaking procedures.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Farmer

The reliability of a drug-detection dog must be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the dog's training, testing and the certification of the dog's handlers.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Higgins

Failure by the trial court to sua sponte prevent the victim's mother in a sexual penetration, sodomy and rape case to comment on the victim's credibility constitutes plain error and requires reversal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Lubbers

A waiver of the right to counsel is valid when the totality of circumstances indicates that the defendant is aware of his or her right to counsel, the benefits of having counsel, and the disadvantages of self-representation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

SAIF Corporation v. Matt Jenkins Contracting

When a temporary service provider leases a worker to an employer, the temporary service provider becomes a worker leasing company responsible for providing workers' compensation coverage under ORS 656.850.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Cruz-Gonzalez

Driving away after damaging property, even for two minutes, completes the crime of failure to perform the duties of a driver when property is damaged, and a jury instruction on attempt is not warranted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Davenport v. Premo

An appeal is moot when an inmate seeks habeas corpus relief, is subsequently transferred to a correctional facility out of state, and cannot demonstrate that the appeal would have a practical effect on his rights.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

State v. Petterson

After the appearance of new information which vitiates probable cause, an investigation must cease.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Hamilton . SAIF Corportaion

An employer's requirement that an employee stand on a hard floor does not significantly increase the risk of injury, and, therefore, by itself, cannot prove a causal nexus between employment conditions and injuries resulting from falling down.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Pinckney

"Use" under ORS 166.220(1)(a) includes both physical force and the threat of physical force, and a trial court does not err when it rejects a proposed jury instruction that states that "use" includes only actual force.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Saldana-Ramirez v. State of Oregon

Defendant's Padilla-based post-conviction claim could not stand because Padilla was decided after he was convicted, and it does not apply retroactively.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Stookey

Violating ORS 815.020(1)(a) requires a vehicle to be so sufficiently unsafe that its occupants face a danger of probable harm or loss. A horizontal crack in defendant's windshield did not "endanger any person" under ORS 815.020 and therefore the officer's objective belief was not reasonable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Deberry v. Summers

Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-attorney after he filed a motion under ORCP 47 E because the witness plaintiff planned to call had no personal knowledge of the events; therefore no genuine issue of material fact existed, and summary judgment was proper.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Tran v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners

ORS 684.100 authorizes the Board of Chiropractic Examiners to (1) discipline individuals practicing chiropractic without a license, and (2) impose up to $10,000 in civil penalties per violation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

3P Delivery, Inc. v. Employment Dept. Tax Section

A lease-leaseback arrangement does not constitute furnishable title to qualify for a tax exemption under ORS 657.047(1)(b).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

State v. Febuary

Testimony of a prior incident of sexual abuse must carry a sufficient concurrence of common features for it to be admissible as noncharacter evidence under OEC 404.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Hudson

Trial court properly denied a motion to suppress when Defendant was properly seized, police entered the house under exigent circumstances, police properly read Defendant his Miranda warnings, and asked only clarifying questions after Defendant equivocally invoked his right to counsel.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Davis

A jury instruction is erroneous when defining recklessness in criminal mischief as relating to a particular circumstance rather than only to the resulting damage.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Pereida-Alba v. Coursey

Defense counsel's failure to request a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense is demonstrative of a lack of professional skill and is prejudicial to the client.

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

Berry and Huffman

ORS 107.104 does not entitle a prevailing party to recover attorney fees in absence of independent statutory authority authorizing the recovery of such fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Moats

A seizure does not occur under Article I section 9 of the Oregon Constitution when officers do not demonstrate authority over a defendant prior to discovering drugs in the vehicle.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Dawson v. Employment Dept.

Employment benefits were rightfully denied when claimant was wantonly negligent, indifferent to consequences, and should have been aware that his decision to drive under the influence of intoxicants would violate an employer's expectations of an employee.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Gonzales-Sanchez

A six-year delay in prosecuting a DUII charge did not violate the defendant's right to a speedy trial because the delay was primarily caused by the defendant by failing to fulfill his obligations under the diversion agreement he entered into with the court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Mast

Under Article I, section 9, a private office constitutes a protected privacy interest which requires a warrant in order to search. The administrative search exception does not give an officer the authority to "forcibly enter" said private office or premises.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Smith v. Board of Parole

A notice-of-rights form constitutes a rule under ORS 183.310(9) requiring compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act when it details practices and procedures that are generally applicable to all hearings.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Crothers v. Employment Dept.

Unavailability to work during avocation hours will not disqualify a recipient of unemployment benefits so long as the unavailability does not interfere with regular hours of primary employment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Page v. Parsons

A trial court is not required to provide multiple hearings on a special motion to strike under ORS 31.150, as this would be contrary to legislative intent to curtail the litigation process. A trial court may also grant a special motion to strike after a non-specific discovery request from the plaintiff.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Nolasco-Lara

The Court may choose not to exercise its discretion regarding sentences that meet the test for plain error if the Defendant encouraged the trial judge to impose a sentence and strategically chose not to object to the sentence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law