Brent Hammack

Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)

Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office v. Edwards

Under ORS 408.230(2)(c), public employers are required “to formulate some sort of standard or regular procedure that the public employer develops in advance and then applies in a hiring process.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (24 summaries)

State v. Cowdrey

An officer's conduct during a traffic stop that extends "beyond that reasonably related to the traffic violation, must be justified on some basis other than the traffic violation." State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610, 623 (2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Cowdrey

An officer's conduct during a traffic stop that extends "beyond that reasonably related to the traffic violation, must be justified on some basis other than the traffic violation." State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610, 623 (2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. M. S. S. K.

In order to affirm on an alternative basis: (1) "the facts of record be sufficient to support the alternative basis for affirmance;" (2) "the trial court’s ruling be consistent with the view of the evidence under the alternative basis for affirmance;" (3) "the record materially be the same one that would have been developed had the prevailing party raised the alternative basis for affirmance below." Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 659-660 (2001).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Kerne

Per Article VII, § 3 of the Oregon Constitution, where a trial court commits an error in rendering its verdict but, upon sufficient review, it is determined that the judgment is essentially the same as it should have been in the absence of the error, the judgment must be affirmed. State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 28 (2003).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Miller

An appellate court must review “the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal for legal error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Rivera-Ortiz, 288 Or App 284, 285 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Oatney v. Kelly

“[A] trial counsel perform[s] inadequately [when they] fail to move to suppress [evidence]…used in violation of [an] immunity promised by [a] district attorney.” Oatney v. Premo, 275 Or App 185, 187 (2015).

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

Maidens v. Nooth

ORS 138.510(3) requires that a petition for post-conviction relief be brought within two years from the date of the final interlocutory judgment, unless the court determines that the contested grounds for relief in a subsequent petition could not have been reasonably raised in the original petition.

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

Docken v. Myrick

Two elements must be established to prove inadequate counsel: (1) an attorney "failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment," and (2) "counsel's failure had a tendency to affect the result of the trial." Montez v. Czerniak, 355 OR 1, 7 (2014).

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

State v. Malm

Under ORS 137.225(3), if the 'circumstances and behavior' of an applicant from the date of an arrest to the date of the hearing on a motion for setting aside the record of that arrest preclude an applicant from being granted relief, the court shall enter an appropriate order.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. T. Z.

Under ORS 426.005(1)(f)(C), in order to be lawfully recommitted, a person be (1) over 18 years old and, (2) "[have] a chronic mental illness” per ORS 426.495"; (3) "been twice committed in the past three years by state authority; (4) “exhibiting symptoms or behavior substantially similar to those that preceded and led to one or more [commitments]”; and (5) "[that] unless treated, will continue, to a reasonable medical probability, to physically or mentally deteriorate."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Doe v. Silverman

ORS 12.117 extends the statute of limitations if a plaintiff alleges a defendant had “actual, and not merely constructive, knowledge of child abuse.” Lourim v. Swensen, 147 Or App 425, 444, 936 P2d 1011 (1997) (Lourim I), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 328 Or 380, 977 P2d 1157 (1999) (Lourim II).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Hughes-Kuda and Kuda

ORS 107.105(1)(d)(C) provides a set of factors that a trial court considers when determining the appropriate amount and duration of spousal support to be awarded. This list includes, but is not limited to, the duration of the marriage; age and health of the parties; any standard of living established during marriage; and the relative income and earning capacity of the parties, in addition to other proscribed factors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Jones

ORS 811.505(1)(a) provides in part that "[a] person commits the offense of failure to stop when emerging from an alley, driveway or building” if the driver does not stop when before crossing a sidewalk or sidewalk area."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Quesnoy v. Dept. of Rev.

ORS 18.345(1)(k) exempts from a creditors' ability to garnish, payments or property, up to $10,000 in value, received as an award of damages for the “personal bodily injury’ of [a] debtor.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Humphrey v. OHSU

Payment by a public body for any part of a claim can constitute notice. ORS 30.275(3)(d). A “person who makes an advance payment … with written notice of the date of expiration of the period of limitation for the commencement of an action … does not suspend the running of such period of limitation." ORS 12.155(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Haddon

The anti-merger statute, ORS 161.067(1), provides that when a given conduct or "criminal episode" violates two or more criminal statutes, and one these statutes require establishing an element not present in the other, each violation is to be treated as a "separately punishable offense."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Turudic

Under ORS 811.700(1)(a), a driver commits a misdemeanor crime if they fail to "affirmatively provide" the other driver or passenger the name and address of the driver and the registration number of the vehicle . . . and the name and address of any other occupants . . ."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Sako v. Taylor 286 Or App 9 (2017)

In order to establish prejudice, it must be shown that counsel's performance "had a tendency to affect the result of the prosecution." Green v. Franke, 357 Or 301, 321 (2015).

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

State v. Garcia-Cisneros

ORS 811.705 requires a driver to know of an accident causing injury, it does not imply an assumption that a driver must return to the scene after learning of the accident at a later time.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Fisher v. Angelozzi

"There are three components to a true Brady violation…the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused… evidence must have been suppressed by the state…and prejudice must have ensued." Strickler v. Greene, 527 US 263, 281-282, 119 S Ct 1936, 144 L Ed 2d 286 (1999).

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

State v. Sheikh-Nur

ORS 138.225(5)(b) states that "[i]f the appellate court, in a case involving multiple counts of which at least one is a felony, reverses the judgment of conviction on any count and affirms other counts, the appellate court shall remand the case to the trial court for resentencing on the affirmed count or counts."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Alsaedi v. Conroy

In order to recover attorney fees for property damage claims under ORS 20.080, the injured party must include all the required information about the damaged property or prove the information was unavailable or unreasonable to obtain.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Benavente v. Thayer

Under ORCP 54 E, once a claiming party files an accepted offer of judgment there is “nothing for the court to do but to enter what the parties have agreed upon,” see State ex rel State Scholarship Com’n v. Magar, 288 Or 635, 642, 607 P2d 167 (1980).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Flores

"In a jury trial, an error is harmless if there is little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict." State v. Davis, 336 OR 19, 32 (2003).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence