Brendan Davis

Oregon Court of Appeals (14 summaries)

MT & M Gaming, Inc. v. City of Portland

Under ORS 28.020, to seek relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, a plaintiff must establish that his or her rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by the relevant instrument.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

State v. Vennell

For an officer to have reasonable suspicion to conduct a search, the smell of drugs on the suspect can meet the objective prong of the reasonable suspicion test.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Eklof v. Steward

Under ORS 138.550(3) it is the petitioner's duty to submit evidence that the grounds for relief asserted could not have been reasonably raised in the original petition.

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

Schultz v. Franke

To review for attachment under ORS 138.580 plain error applies when the petition meets three requirements: the error is an error of law, the legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and the record is sufficiently well-developed that a court “need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences” to address the error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

S. J. R. v. King

Under ORS 30.866(1)(a) a person seeking a stalking protective order must show evidence of two or more qualifying contacts.

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

Mullen v. Meredith Corp.

Oregon's Anti-SLAPP statute, ORS 31.150, gives defendants ground to strike a civil claim when their conduct was in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or issue of public interest, even if that conduct is not necessary to the exercise of free speech.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Vargas

Under ORS 138.222(2)(a), the appellate court is only precluded from reviewing challenges to convictions that address the length of the sentence when the sentence is within its presumptive range.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Corkum v. Bi-Mart Corp.

Under ORS 656.005(24)(c), a condition renders the worker more susceptible to an injury when it is a passive contribution (e.g. age, gender, weight) which does not have its own independent, active pathological impact on the body part.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Crisafi

Under ORS 813.215(h), the exception to diversion is valid even if the accused is ineligible for the commercial driver license he or she already has been granted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Cirina and Cirina

When dividing property in a divorce proceeding, marital debts are divided evenly between the two parties.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

F. C. L. v. Agustin

The Fourteenth Amendment's right to due process gives defendants protection from overly coercive statements from the trial court about the risks of giving false testimony.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Clink

The protections of Article I, sec. 9 of the Oregon Constitution against unreasonable seizures can be overcome by an officer's reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Norton

Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution protects individuals from incriminating evidence when the individual initiates the contact with the officer and the conversation morphs into a seizure, even when that evidence is given with consent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Gonzalez v. Standard Tools and Equipment Co.

Oregon does not recognize the product line liability exception to the general rule of successor liability.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law