Caitlynn Dahlquist

Oregon Supreme Court (2 summaries)

Dept. of Human Services v. T. L.

A parent can raise a claim of inadequate assistance of counsel when a judgment changes the permanent plan for his children from reunification with a parent to permanent plans of guardianship and APPLA.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Medina

For the purpose of ORS 165.800 (Oregon's identity theft statute), signing a document with a false name does not amount to "utter[ing]" or “convert[ing] to [his] own use” another person’s personal identification.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (57 summaries)

Handley and Handley

Under ORS 107.135(3)(a), a substantial change in economic circumstances is sufficient to modify the child support order.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

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

There must be significant collateral consequences for the court to reverse a jurisdiction judgment in a case that where jurisdiction was later terminated.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. P. A.

Decisions regarding certification of foster parents and reversals of founded dispositions are department actions subject to challenge under Oregon's Administrative Procedures Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. Z. E. W.

Another state declining to approve an Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children is not a ground for asserting jurisdiction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. B.P.

An appeal of one jurisdictional judgment does not invalidate subsequent stand-alone jurisdictional judgments.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. S. C. T.

Under ORS 419B.815(7), parents cannot appear through their attorneys when summoned to be present under ORS 419B.815(4) and the court may take jurisdiction despite their lack of presence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. C.P.

In juvenile dependency cases, the burden shifts to the parents when the parents file a motion to dismiss after the permanency plan has been changed to something other than reunification.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

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

Unpreserved inadequate-assistance of counsel claims in dependency cases may be raised in the first instance on direct appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. R. M. S.

A juvenile court must find jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, ORS 109.701 to 109.834, in challenges to state jurisdiction and not the proper venue statutes, ORS 419B.118.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Walker

Under the standard in State v. Holdorf, an officer has “reasonable suspicion” to initiate a stop if the officer can identify “specific and articulable facts” that a person has committed, or is about to commit a crime. The “reasonable suspicion” standard required in order to stop a citizen is less than the “probable cause” standard necessary to arrest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Walraven v. Premo

Under the standard announced in Wade v. Brockamp, trial counsel's failure to object to the "natural and probable consequences" jury instruction as to a defendant's aggravated murder charge equates to constitutionally inadequate counsel.

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

Hughes v. Ephram

The legislature's use of the word "enjoin" in ORS 726.330 is broad enough to include a writ of garnishment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Lagunas-Garcia v. Taylor

A post-conviction court's form judgment must comply with ORS 138.640.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Robinson v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon

Under ORS 742.061(3), sending a "safe harbor" letter, even if it did not include the statutory language that "the only issues are the liability of the uninsured or underinsured and the damages due the insured," satisfies the exemption.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. M.A.

Civil commitments require a showing that a person is dangerous to himself or others.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Heng-Nguyen v. Tigard-Tualatin School District

"A defendant receives actual notice under ORS 30.275(6) when (1) a communication informs the defendant of the time, place, and circumstances of the incident that gave rise to the claim that the plaintiff ultimately asserts and (2) the communication would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the plaintiff intends to assert a claim."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Daly

"The appropriate time to challenge the existence of the conditions precedent to the issuance of the citation is in a pretrial motion aimed at the efficacy of the charging instrument."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

State v. Wixom

DHS records are confidential and, when unrelated to the issue in question, are not subject to in camera review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Monroe

Revoking probation based on one violation is not an abuse of discretion if the condition of probation is "zero tolerance/no structured sanctions."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Pittman

Second-degree robbery is only a lesser included offense of first-degree robbery if the "accusatory instrument recited sufficient facts to satisfy each element of second-degree robbery."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Federal Express Corp. v. Estrada

Under ORS 656.265(4)(c), the employee must know that he or she has been injured and have good cause for not reporting within the 90 day period.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Delong

The scope of consent in a search is "determined by reference to what a typical, reasonable person would have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect in light of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the grant of consent in a particular case."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Dept. of Human Services v. M. C. C.

Participating in dependency proceedings for more than two years without raising an objection to the sufficiency of service under the Hague Service Convention waives the objection.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. C. S.

The word imminent as used in ORS 163.190 means "near at hand, impending, or menacingly near."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

7455 Incorporated v. Tuala Northwest, LLC

A third party does not have standing to bring a prescriptive easement claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Dudrov v. State of Oregon

ORS 138.640(1) imposes a clear-statement rule on judgments in post-conviction proceedings.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Betcher

Oregon's non-vouching rule prohibits the admission at trial of evidence of one witness's opinion about another witness's credibility expert or otherwise.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Stone v. Employment Department

When holding a part time employment position, an employee must continue to actively seek full time employment according to ORS 657.155(1)(c) if the employee wishes to continue to receive unemployment benefits during that time period.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Adams and Adams

Under OAR 137-050-0760, a parent's actual and potential income are the only two things allowed to be considered in determining income for support, not the income of other individuals in the house.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Wall Street Management & Capital, Inc. v. Crites

"Where a guarantor signs a guaranty outside the creditor's presence and without having first received a direct request from the creditor asking that the guarantor do so, the guarantor has merely made an offer to the credit to form a contract" and acceptance by the creditor would be necessary to form a contract.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Sullivan v. Popoff

An attorney's decision not to raise certain objections does not automatically call into question the reasonable professional skill and judgment of defense counsel under the Oregon Post-Conviction Relief Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Haugen

The Lawson/James framework gives the three requirements for addressing challenges to eyewitness identification reliability.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Hamlin v. PERB

Under ORS 238.465, Public Employee Retirement System participants can have their retirement accounts divided after a judgment to an estate.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Department of Human Services v. K.W.

Under ORS 419B.923(1), the juvenile court has discretion to set aside a default termination of parental rights judgment if it had been entered into improperly, but only under certain circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Oil Re-Refining Co. v. Dept. of Environ. Quality

Under 40 CFR § 263.20(a)(1) or ORS 466.095(1)(c), when charging an entity with a violation of permit regulations regarding the transport and treatment of hazardous waste, the mental state of a charged entity at the time of the violation is irrelevant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Bandon Pacific v. Environmental Quality Commission

A department must consider all reasonably available information when reaching a conclusion as to the magnitude classification of violations.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Conicienne v. Asante

An amended complaint that relates back to the original complaint in that it “arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading” is not barred by the statute of limitations according to ORCP 23 C.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

DeAngeles and DeAngeles

When considering a spousal award for maintenance support, it is "improper to award support for a period of time that is defined by a contingency the occurrence of which is a matter of mere speculation."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Hooper v. Division of Medical Assistance Programs

Under ORS 14.175, a case that might otherwise be ruled as moot can still be heard if it meets the three requirements laid out in the statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Williams

A motion to sever will only be granted under ORS 132.560(3) if the "defendant is substantially prejudiced by a joinder of offenses."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Weems v. Winn

A trial court must follow the statutory methodology in ORS 107.137 in determining child custody.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

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

Under ORS 419B.923(1)(b), the concept of excusable neglect encompasses 'a parent’s reasonable, good faith mistake as to the time or place of a dependency proceeding.'

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Thoens v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Oregon

The plaintiff should be allowed the opportunity by the court to present evidence as to whether the motorist was underinsured.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Fine and Fine

The trial court has discretion in determining what property division is "just and proper in all circumstances," unless the trial court has "misapplied the statutory and equitable considerations that ORS 107.105(1)(f) requires."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. McNally

Jury instructions are to be granted if there is a evidence to support it and if the proposed instruction accurately states the law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Maney v. Board of Parole

The process for a murder review hearing by the Board of Parole under ORS 163.105 satisfies the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Department of Human Services v. M. A. H.

Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), dependency jurisdiction is only granted when there is a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child at the time of the jurisdiction hearing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

McManus v. Auchincloss

The public policy underlying ORS 659.550 is "to encourage all employees with a good-faith belief that their employer had committed a crime involving child abuse to report that belief to law enforcement," even if the employee is not required by law to report such information.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Price

Under ORS 137.106(5), a judge must grant a restitution hearing if the "defendant objects to the imposition, amount or distribution of the restitution."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Lunsford v. NCH Corporation

ORS 30.905(3)(b) does not violate the remedy clause because wrongful death actions were not recognized by the common law in 1875.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Elder Law

Johnson v. Johnson

UNDER UTCR 7.020(3), a trial court cannot dismiss an action due to the plaintiff not filing a proposed order for want of prosecution, because no UTCR requires a proposed order be filed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Madrone and Madrone

ORS 109.243 applies to unmarried same-sex couples who have a child through artificial insemination if the partner of the biological parent consented to the insemination and the couple would have chosen to marry had that choice been available to them.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Vukanovich v. Kine

When the trial court grants JNOV, the proper procedural course, if the appellate court reverses the JNOV, is to remand to the trail court to determine whether there is additional evidence to support the alleged claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Eicks v. Teacher Standards and Practices Commission

Under ORS 342.175(1)(b) and OAR 584-020-0035(3)(a), an application for a school counseling and psychologist license may only be denied for “gross neglect of duty” when there is a nexus between the applicant's questioned conduct and professional responsibilities.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Ajir v. Buell

Under ORS 278.215(2), a self-insured public body is obligated to provide the UM/UIM coverage according to ORS 742.500 to ORS 742.504 unless there is a signed, written election that lowers the limit.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Teegarden v. State of Oregon

A settlement agreement barring a party from filing any further actions against another party does not preclude an action for intentional torts when the settlement agreement was induced with a material misrepresentation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Dept. of Human Services v. K.C.F.

In order for a court to take jurisdiction over a child, there must be current circumstances that establish a serious and reasonable threat of harm to the child at the time of trial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law