Connor Harrington

Oregon Supreme Court (5 summaries)

State v. Mills

Article I Section 11 of the Oregon Constitution does not require the State to prove venue as a material element of a crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Homestyle Direct, LLC v. DHS

The validity of an administrative rule is irrelevant if the agency seeks to enforce the obligation as a contract term.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Christian

Ordinance prohibiting possession of a loaded firearm in public is not an unconstitutional denial of the right to bear arms in self-defense. Additionally, the Court will not consider overbreadth challenges in Article I, Section 27 cases.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Copeland

Family Abuse Prevention Act certificate of service of a restraining order is an official record and is not testimonial evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Fair

Temporary detention of an individual is constitutional if: (1) there is a reasonable belief that an offense involving danger of forcible injury to a person recently has been committed nearby; (2) there is a reasonable belief that the person has knowledge that may aid the investigation of the suspected crime; and (3) the detention is reasonably necessary to obtain or verify the identity of the person, or to obtain an account of the crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Oregon Court of Appeals (26 summaries)

State v. Shumate

Remand denied where defendant failed to identify flaws in original sentencing proceeding. For a court order to be appealable, it must resolve all charges brought in the case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. King

Under ORS 161.067(3), a single criminal episode of assault may be multiple violations when an assault is commenced, stops, and begins again. The pause must constitute a sufficient opportunity to renounce criminal intent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Barnes

Erroneously admitted testimony admissible if there is "little likelihood" it affected the verdict.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Davis

Second-degree burglary convictions affirmed and reversed based on whether buildings were "not open to the public" as defined in ORS 164.205(3)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Assn. of Acupuncture v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners

The State Board of Chiropractic Examiners is limited to making rules that fall within the definition of the practice of "chiropractic" as defined by ORS 684.010(2). Rules made outside the scope of that authority will be found invalid.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Link

When some of a defendant's convictions are remanded, the trial court must grant defendant a sentencing proceeding.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Greenfield v. Multnomah County

Under the farm stand statute, ORS 215.283, outdoor farm-to-plate dinners may be within the scope of the statute and food carts are considered "structures."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

State v. Pitts

A burglary conviction can be based on disobeying a peace officer's order only if the original order, the unlawful entry, and the intent to refuse to obey that order all take place as part of a single continuous criminal episode.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Hurtado-Navarrete

Police are not required to re-advise a defendant of his Miranda rights when he has been provided Miranda rights on multiple occasions including two the day before the statements were made.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Lotches v. Premo

The Oregon Constitution does not grant a right to a perfect defense in criminal cases. It requires only that counsel act to diligently and conscientiously advance the defense.

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

Cayton v. Safelite Glass Corp.

Success in obtaining penalty-based attorney fees under ORS 656.262(11) for delay in payment of compensation does not mandate an award of compensation-based attorney fees under ORS 656.382(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Doyle v. City of Medford

ORS 243.303(2) does not create a private right of action for damages.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

State v. Hickman

Lawson/James test determines reliability of eyewitness identification evidence in Oregon.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Herring v. American Medical Response Northwest

"Vulnerable person" under ORS 124.100 includes a temporary incapacitated person. ORS 124.100(2)(b) unambiguously requires the court to triple noneconomic damages resulting from physical abuse.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Ross v. Franke

ORS 138.580 requires a petitioner to attach documentary evidence to support allegations in his petition.

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

3P Delivery, Inc. v. Employment Dept.

ORS 657.047 does not exempt delivery drivers who lease their equipment to a for-hire carrier from the definition of employment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Christensen and Christensen

Under the "just and proper" analysis, the spouse is required to demonstrate that acting "just and proper" would provide the spouse with a greater share of the marital assets.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Carroll

Diversion is not a defense to DUII and the amended criteria for diversion eligibility does not increase DUII punishment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. White

Expert testimony regarding delayed reporting of sexual abuse by a child is relevant to explain why there was a delay in reporting by complainant and to counter a possible argument that the delay indicates a fabrication.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Stephens

When analyzing a motion to dismiss based on a speedy trial argument, a court must determine the length of the delay and whether the defendant consented to the delay. Then, the court must determine whether the delay was reasonable given the circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Walker

A racketeering charge under ORS 166.720(3) requires the defendant to have participated in an enterprise, which is an on-going organization with continuity, and that organization is distinct from the criminal acts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Pendergrapht

Under ORS 151.505 and 161.665, a court cannot impose attorney fees unless there is a factual basis for determining that a defendant is actually able to pay the fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Toland

A trial court may not preclude a presented defense when the defendant offers evidence to support that defense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Massey

Use of the Miles jury instruction is improper when there is insufficient evidence at trial to show that a defendant's physical condition made him more susceptible to the influence of intoxicants than he normally would be.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Lamb

During the course of a lawful stop, an officer may inquire as to whether the defendant has weapons on his person without it being an unlawful seizure.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Parsley v. Oregon

The validity of a circuit court judgment may not be attacked in a subsequent contempt proceeding. Additionally, a plaintiff is not required to appear at a contempt hearing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law