Gabriel Lee

Oregon Supreme Court (17 summaries)

Deckard v. Bunch

ORS 471.565(2) does not create a cause of action for statutory tort liability against third-party social hosts that is independent from common-law tort liability.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Johnson v. Gibson

Under the Oregon Public Use of Lands Act, government employees or agents are not "owners" as defined by ORS 105.672(4), and are consequently not subject to recreational immunity from tort lawsuits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Suppah

Evidence of a misrepresentation to a police officer under ORS 807.620 will not be suppressed, even if the untruthful statement is elicited during an unlawful stop if the misrepresentation is unconnected with the unlawful stop in only a “but for” sense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela

Under ORS 163.575(1)(b), a criminal defendant may be charged with child endangerment if that defendant knowingly puts a minor in a place where the principal and substantial use of that place is to facilitate unlawful drug activity, including possession of drugs.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 45)

Under ORS 250.085(5), a petitioner may seek review of a certified ballot title to determine whether it substantially complies with ORS 250.035(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 46)

Under ORS 250.085(5), a petitioner may seek review of a certified ballot title to determine whether it substantially complies with ORS 250.035(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

Kendoll v. Rosenblum

Under ORS 250.085(5), a petitioner may seek review of a certified ballot title to determine whether it substantially complies with ORS 250.035(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

State v. Cuevas

OAR 213-012-0020(2) and OAR 213-004-0006(2) do not require a jury determination of whether multiple convictions sentenced in a single judicial proceeding arose out of separate criminal episodes, because each rule serves as an exception to reduce a total criminal sentence, thereby not triggering the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc.

In order to certify a class action lawsuit under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act for intentional misrepresentation causing economic losses, plaintiffs must prove that common issues, such as common reliance on defendant’s alleged misrepresentation, predominate over individualized issues.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Brownstone Homes Condo. Assn. v. Brownstone Forest Hts.

Because an addendum to a settlement agreement does not retroactively eliminate an original release of claims, the issue of whether a party may initiate an action despite the settlement agreement is a live issue, and therefore a motion to dismiss for mootness should be denied.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Greenwood Products v. Greenwood Forest Products

Under ORCP 64(B)(4), a trial court may authorize a new trial based on newly discovered evidence only if the proffered evidence is (1) newly discovered; (2) material for the moving party; and (3) unable to have been discovered and produced at trial given the exercise of reasonable diligence of the moving party. In this context, “reasonable diligence” includes the party’s capacity to request a continuance in civil proceedings while pertinent evidence is developed in a concurrent criminal case, and questioning a witness until that witness invokes a privilege to not testify.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Rogue Valley Sewer Services v. City of Phoenix

A franchise fee imposed upon a local government entity by ordinance of a municipality is permissible under the "home-rule" if the ordinance does not violate the state constitution, if it does not violate the criminal laws of the state, and if it is authorized by the municipality's charter; so long as the ordinance does not impose a duty on or impair the power of the local government entity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Montara Owners Assn. v. La Noeu Development, LLC

If a construction contract is only partially overbroad under ORS 30.140, then only those overbroad portions are voidable, rather than the entire contract. If no evidence supports a jury instruction on diminution of value, a jury instruction on damages under the economic waste doctrine is harmless.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Green v. Franke

In post-conviction proceedings where petitioner argues inadequate representation at trial which resulted in prejudice to the case, the proper standards to apply are (1) whether trial counsel’s acts or omissions constituted inadequate assistance of counsel when viewed in light of counsel’s trial strategy; and (2) whether trial counsel’s acts or omissions, with consideration of trial strategy, “could have tended to affect” the outcome of the case.

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

State v. Lykins

Under ORS 162.285, the victim of the crime of tampering with a witness is the state in its official capacity as administrator of justice. Under OAR 213-008-0002, a convicted defendant is subject to aggravated sentencing when the direct victim of the substantive crime is “particularly vulnerable.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Nix

Appeals under ORS 138.222(4) are only available in felony cases; writs of mandamus must be specifically requested, or in exceptional circumstances, may be allowed where the required information is available; and Oregon appellate decisions rendered without appellate authority must be vacated.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor

A liability release is unconscionable and unenforceable if both its procedural and substantive elements are so against public policy that they protect negligent premises-management and allocate all negligent damages upon a paying customer with no bargaining power.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (136 summaries)

State v. Miller

Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, questioning an otherwise cooperative driver about weapons based solely on that driver’s license to carry a concealed firearm permit where there are no other circumstances indicating that the driver poses a threat to the officer, may constitute an unlawful extension of a traffic stop, and any statements obtained because of the officer’s questioning should be suppressed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Dept. of Human Services v. M. M.

In order for a juvenile court to take jurisdiction over a child under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), the court must prove that a the child’s current conditions and circumstances are such as to endanger the welfare of the child.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Richards

Under ORS 137.593(3), a trial court may not revoke a criminal defendant’s probation if the defendant has already completed a structured, intermediate probation sanction for the same conduct. However, if the defendant serves a structured, intermediate imposed for a violation of conditions of post-prison supervision, the court retains authority to revoke the defendant’s probation for that same conduct.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

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

A trial court may not terminate parental rights under ORS 419B.819(7) and ORS 419B.820 for a parent’s failure to appear at hearing, unless the court complies with the notice requirements of ORS 419B.820.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Gordon v. Rosenblum

A permanent injunction preventing the Department of Justice from taking action under the Unlawful Trade Practices Act after an investigation provides probable cause for such action is improper where the investigated party uses deceptive practices and incorrect information to collect from debtors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Consumer Credit

Royer v. Touch of Grey Ranch

A laborer who is injured while remodeling a building used for non-commercial activities not within the trade or business of the employer falls under the “householder” exception of ORS 656.027(2) and is a “non-subject” worker as defined under the Oregon Workers’ Compensation Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Springville Corp. v. Stoel Rives LLP

In a legal malpractice action, a plaintiff must establish causation, in that there must be evidence tending to prove that in the case-within-the-case, if the attorney or law firm had not been negligent, the outcome of the case would have been more favorable to the plaintiff; if no evidence of causation is shown, then summary judgment for the defendant(s) is proper.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Cavallaro

Under Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a trial court must suppress incriminating statements made by a criminal defendant after that defendant unequivocally invokes the right to counsel, unless the defendant subsequently waives the right to counsel by evincing a “willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion about the investigation” that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that Defendant had waived his constitutional right to counsel.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Bouris and Bouris

If a trial court erroneously imputes facts regarding a party's actual income when determining spousal support or child support, then the Court of Appeals will reverse and remand.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Renton v. Webber

In order for a court to reconsider a custody determination, a party must file a motion to modify the judgment in light of new information under ORS 107.135. That motion must show that (1) circumstances have changed substantially since the original judgment or last custody order; and (2) it is in the child's best interest to change custody from the legal custodian to the moving party.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. B. B. S.

If a juvenile court asserts jurisdiction over a youth based on stipulated facts, those facts must be sufficient to prove that the youth would have been convicted of a crime if that youth had been an adult.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

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

The Court will not review as-of-yet unadjudicated petitions to the juvenile court to assert jurisdiction over minors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Pittman

If on reconsideration the court finds that a prior decision erroneously instructed a lower court to enter a judgment for a lesser-included offense, when the elements of that offense were not alleged in the pleadings, the court may reconsider the case and alter its instructions accordingly.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Radtke

The Oregon Court of Appeals may exercise its discretion under ORAP 5.45(1) to reverse a trial court's plain error that imposes court-appointed attorney fees against a convicted criminal defendant when there is no evidence on the record that the court assessed the defendant's ability to pay those fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Hyinx Semiconductor Mfg. America v. EWEB

Under ORS 42.230, when interpreting the terms of a contract, the Oregon Court of Appeals looks to the explicit language of the contract terms, and construes them together as a whole as applied to the issue raised.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Salibello v. Board of Optometry

If the Oregon Administrative Procedure Act provides an adequate and exclusive remedy for an individual, then there is no remedy available in a trial court under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Gonzalez-Cristin

Under ORS 151.505(3) and ORS 161.665(4), a trial court may not sentence a criminal defendant to pay attorney fees to the court-appointed attorney unless the court finds on the record that the defendant can or will be able to pay those fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

AFSCME Council 75 v. City of Portland

If an unfair labor practice complaint is filed under ORS 243.672(1)(b) based on a charge that an employer has “changed the status quo” with regard to the processing of grievances, including the practice of document transmittal, then the Employment Relations Board must review whether the change is a per se mandatory subject of bargaining.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Dept. of Human Services v. A. A.

When changing a permanency plan for a child, a juvenile court may not take judicial notice of facts within reports prepared by DHS and the Court-Appointed Special Advocate while off the record without giving notice to the parent, along with an opportunity for the parent to respond to the judicially-noticed evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. McConnell

A trial court errs by denying a criminal defendant's requested special jury instruction when that instruction correctly states the law related to self-defense, and the criminal defendant had proceeded on a theory of self-defense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Moreno

When appealing the denial of a motion for acquittal, a criminal defendant must prove that, based on the undisputed evidence at trial, no reasonable jury could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, the essential elements of the charged offense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Mullens

Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, a police officer may not exploit an otherwise lawful traffic stop in order to question a driver about drugs without reasonable suspicion to do so.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Pannell

The Court affirmed this case based solely on State v. Barnes, 329 Or 327, 986 P2d 1160 (1999).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Swan

A criminal defendant's consent to taking a breath test after the defendant's unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel does not violate Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution, even where officers have previously violated the defendant's constitutional rights by asking questions after the defendant's unequivocal invocation. Consequently, the results of the consented-to breath test are not subject to the exclusionary rule.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Robbins v. Dept. of Human Services

ORS 12.160(1), as amended by the 2015 legislature, applies to permit the statute of limitations to toll for a minor's claims under the Oregon Tort Claims Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Hurita

A condition of probation that is not reasonably related to the trial court's goal, which is otherwise achieved by another condition of probation, is unenforceable as overbroad.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Dylla

Court-appointed attorney fees are properly imposed against a defendant if the court finds on the record that the defendant's employment history, prospects for future employment, education level, ability to meet financial obligations, fee amount, and short jail sentence support a reasonable inference that defendant can or will be able to pay off the fee.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Gasche

Under OAR 213-012-0020(2)(a)(B), the "shift-to-I" rule applies only when consecutive sentences are imposed for crimes that arise from a single criminal episode.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Martinez

A trial court must make specific findings on the record that reasonable suspicion particular to the suspect existed when denying a criminal defendant's motion to suppress evidence that may have been gained after an unlawful seizure.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Hughes v. Ephrem

When assessing a defense to an action for forcible entry and detainer predicated on a quitclaim transfer of the property to another party in a life estate, the trial court must make factual findings regarding the intent of the parties at the time of the transfer.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Vaughn and Vaughn

A trial court retains personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state individual in motions captioned in relation to a dissolution judgment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Asbill v. Angelozzi

Under ORS 138.640(1), if a judgment document denying post-conviction relief is sufficient even where it does not explicitly state the court’s findings underlying the reasons for denying relief, but makes reference to oral findings on the record which provide a sufficient basis for denying relief.

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

Gibson v. Bankofier

To survive summary judgment in proving financial abuse of a vulnerable person under ORS 124.110(1)(a), a plaintiff must show facts to prove that defendant wrongfully took or appropriated money or property from a vulnerable person.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trusts and Estates

State v. Gonzalez

Under OEC 803(3), hearsay statements intended to prove the state of mind of a defendant are admissible.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Johnson

Under ORS 163.160(1)(a), to sustain a conviction of fourth-degree assault, the state must prove that the victim suffered a "physical injury" which is defined as "physical impairment or substantial pain" under ORS 161.015(7). Testimonial evidence that the victim felt a "sting" after the incident, alone, does not imply a "physical injury".

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Sasser

Under former ORS 137.290 (2009), the court was permitted to impose a Mandatory State Amt of 60$ for each conviction. The legislature repealed the law in 2011, and any convictions after that time may not have the Mandatory State Amt imposed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Federal National Mortgage Association v. Goodrich

Under the Oregon Trust Deeds Act, the Mortgage Electronic Recording System (MERS) is neither a lender nor a successor to a lender, and therefore cannot be a proper beneficiary. A non-judicial foreclosure by an assignee of MERS is invalid where there was no recording of the assignment in the county in which the property is located.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Southard v. Larkins

A court will not invalidate a marriage unless timely evidence proves that the marriage was invalid. A trial court has jurisdiction and authority to exercise its discretion in awarding custody of children in a marriage dissolution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Blachana, LLC v. BOLI

If a party requests reconsideration of an opinion published by the Court of Appeals based on an erroneous factual finding, the Court will review its decision, and, if necessary, modify its opinion. The Court will then adhere to its opinion as modified.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

R.M.C. v. Zekan

Under ORS 30.866(1), a stalking protective order is obtainable only where a petitioner can show that the respondent's conduct causes the petitioner to fear for personal safety.

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

Loucks v. Beaver Valley's Back Yard Garden Products

Under ORS 652.150, an employer is not required to pay a penalty for failure to timely pay unpaid wages to the estate of a deceased employee, because ORS 652.150 merely applies employers who fail to timely pay employees who have quit.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Jones

A trial court’s error in excluding evidence in a criminal trial is harmless if, based on other, properly allowed evidence, the judgment rendered would be the same as if the questioned evidence were excluded. A trial court’s error in sentencing is harmless if the ultimate sentence is lawful and error has no practical effect on a criminal defendant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Wohrman v. Rogers

ORS 63.165 grants limited immunity from personal liability to members of an LLC for obligations undertaken by the LLC, even where the LLC is administratively dissolved and the obligation does not arise from business activities to wind up or liquidate the LLC's business.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

State v. Scruggs

A strip search culminating in a highly intrusive search into a suspect's genital or anal areas is justifiable under the search incident to arrest exception only where the search is reasonable in time, scope, and intensity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Dept. of Human Services v. A. W. (A158694)

A parent’s failure to appear for a status conference does not equate with a parent’s failure to appear for a hearing for a termination of parental rights, and therefore a parent’s failure to appear for a status conference is not grounds for default judgment under ORS 419B.820(7).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. A. W. (A159213)

Cases will be dismissed from the Court of Appeals as moot, even if otherwise justiciable, when the Court’s decision would no longer have a practical effect on or concerning the rights of the parties.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Multi/Tech Eng. Svcs. v. Innovative Des. & Constr.

In order to prove a perfected construction lien under ORS 87.010(5), a litigant must show that sufficient notice of the lien rights was provided to the opposing party before foreclosing on that lien.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Barrett v. Peters (A155789)

Under the Interstate Corrections Compact (ORS 421.245 to ORS 421.254), a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a plaintiff under Oregon legal custody who is serving a sentence in a Florida prison properly names the Oregon director of the Department of Corrections, and can seek relief from conditions of confinement that are unconstitutional under the Oregon Constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Barrett v. Peters (A156271)

Individuals who are under the legal custody of the State of Oregon, but are incarcerated in Florida pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact (ORS 421.245 to ORS 421.254), retain the right to seek habeas corpus relief in Oregon for constitutionally deficient conditions of confinement in Florida.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

State v. Castillo-Lima

A police officer's search of a criminal suspect's pockets must be supported by something more than reasonable suspicion. Further, in making snap decisions in the heat of the moment, police officers are to be granted considerable latitude to take reasonable safety precautions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Swank v. Terex Utilities, Inc.

Under ORCP 4 D, a trial court has specific jurisdiction over a defendant if there is a nexus between the forum state, that defendant, and the subject matter of the litigation. Under ORCP 4 A, a trial court lacks general jurisdiction over a defendant if the plaintiff fails to show that defendant had “substantial and not isolated” contacts within the forum state.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Blachana, LLC v. BOLI

Article I, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution does not protect coercive speech found to violate ORS 659A.403, 659A.406, and 659A.409.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Crosswhite

Under ORS 167.325(1), an individual has "custody or control" over an animal if that individual has authority to guide or manage an animal, or direct or restrain the animal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Watchman

Under ORS 151.505(3) and ORS 161.665(4), a trial court commits reversible error by imposing attorney fees on a defendant if it does not indicate on the record that the defendant can pay those attorney fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Emerson v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc.

In determining whether a defendant committed "grossly negligent" conduct, summary judgment is inappropriate where the plaintiff can show that the defendant has acted with indifference to the probable consequences of a dangerous instrumentality, that, with slight diligence should have been observed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Justice

Under ORS 135.432(4), a trial court abuses its discretion by denying a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement which lessens the defendant's charge from a misdemeanor to a violation, when that trial court's decision is based solely on policies prohibiting such practices, and the decision is not granted individualized "due consideration."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

SAIF v. Traner

Under ORS 656.262(11), if an insurer or self-insured employer unreasonably denies a workers’ compensation claim, and the denial is overturned, then the insurer or self-insured employer is obligated to pay the claimant’s attorney fee, even if no compensation is awarded.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Hawkins

Under ORS 151.505(3) and ORS 161.665(4), a trial court commits plain error by requiring a criminal defendant to pay court-appointed attorney fees unless the court finds the defendant can or will be able to pay them.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Vanorum

A trial court plainly errs by using ambiguous jury instructions in a criminal trial, particularly where the Oregon Supreme Court has previously ruled that the jury instruction is an improper statement of law. Such an error is sufficiently plain and harmful that the Court of Appeals can exercise its discretion to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Hoogendam and Hoogendam

A Stipulated General Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage entered by the trial court is only binding when it (1) accurately reflects the agreed-upon terms of the parties; (2) is signed by both parties; and (3) incorporates documents and terms that are agreed upon by the parties on the record.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v, Rabanales-Ramos

A police officer does not have probable cause to perform a traffic stop under ORS 811.507 when that officer has only observed a driver looking at a lighted device intermittently over a period of ten seconds, and the officer does not observe the driver to be pushing buttons, talking, or holding the phone to the ear.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Kawamoto

Under ORS 163.225, a defendant may be found guilty of kidnapping by way of "secret confinement" of a victim in a place where the victim is "unlikely to be found" by individuals who would reasonably be expected to assist the victim, even when the victim's location is known by the defendant's accomplices. Under ORS 163.411, unlawful sexual penetration by way of forcible compulsion is reasonably found when an extended episode of violence, or threats of future violence, precedes the penetration.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Thunderbird

A convicted defendant seeking DNA testing pursuant to ORS 138.690 to 138.698 must identify specific evidence to be tested that was gathered during the prosecution process.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Johnson v. State Board of Higher Education

Under the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA), the state is not obligated to defend a public employee against tort claims if, after investigation, the state determines that alleged tort arises from an incident outside of the course and scope of employment and the employee does not raise a question of fact challenging the state's determination.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Leahey

Under the Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, a passenger of a vehicle is not subject to an unlawful stop when officers request that the defendant wait outside the car during a search. Further, under the same section, a passenger who consents to a patdown search and a search of a duffel bag is not subject to an unlawful search.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Lindemann

Under ORS 153.633(1), a trial court may not impose additional $60 fees upon a defendant if that court has already imposed penalty fees related to the convictions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dept. of Human Services v. C.A.

Evidence of substance abuse by a parent, and that parent's lack of sole custody, are not sufficient to prove that a child's circumstances and conditions present a non-speculative risk to the child's safety.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

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

Generalized assumptions about a mother's narcolepsy and father's alleged methamphetamine abuse are insufficient evidence for a juvenile court to assert jurisdiction over a child.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Luton v. Willamette Valley Rehabilitation Center

A diagnosed medical condition arising out of workplace exposure is properly analyzed as an occupational disease rather than a workplace injury, if the onset of the particular condition, rather than the specific symptoms, arises over a gradual period of time.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Yoshida's, Inc. v. Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue LLP

Under ORS 36.222, email communications are confidential and protected from admission as evidence unless an exception applies. Additionally, where no material distinction is made between an equivalent Wisconsin statute, and the mediation communications arose out of a Wisconsin case, ORS 36.222 is properly applied to prevent admission of the email communications.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Dept. of Human Services v. D.M.H.

In order to establish continuing jurisdiction over the wardship of a child, the trial court asserting jurisdiction must show through facts in the record that, at the time of the hearing, the child's circumstances and conditions give rise to a current and continuing threat of harm.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Brown

A trial court’s judgment assessing fees for court-appointed attorney services must be supported with evidence in the record that the defendant “is or may be” able to pay the fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Dept. of Human Services v. D.L.O.

A six-month time lapse between evidentiary proceedings and a judgment asserting jurisdiction over juveniles may raise a question of fact sufficient to show that,at the time of the judgment, the children's welfare may not be endangered by their conditions and circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. D.L.O.

A six-month time lapse between evidentiary proceedings and a judgment asserting jurisdiction over juveniles may raise a question of fact sufficient to show that,at the time of the judgment, the children's welfare may not be endangered by their conditions and circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Carter

If a trial court's sentence exceeds the statutory maximum sentence, the Court of Appeals may exercise its discretion to remand for resentencing if the record does not indicate that the trial court will, for certain, impose the same sentence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Spencer

A conviction under ORS 166.610 and ORS 161.270 for felon in possession of a firearm with a firearm may not be sustained if the defendant's felony has been reduced to a misdemeanor at the time of the conviction under ORS 166.610 and ORS 161.270.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Ragibov

Under OEC 803(4), hearsay statements contained in medical records are admissible in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted if three requirements are met: (1) the statement must be made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment; (2) the statement must describe medical history, symptoms, pain or sensations, or the cause or eternal source of the injury; and (3) the statement must be reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Dept. of Human Services v. M.E.M.

A trial court errs by entering a default judgment against a mother in a juvenile dependency case when that mother fails to appear in person at the dependency hearing but appears over the phone.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Myers v. Brockamp

Under ORS 138.640(1), to be legally sufficient, a judgment denying post-conviction relief must, at a minimum, follow the three-prong test elicited in Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672, 676 (2010) with respect to each claim. Failure to do so compels a remand without reaching the merits of petitioner's claim for relief.

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

State v. Anton

Evidence is properly suppressed when it is obtained through an unlawful seizure. A seizure occurs when an officer announces that a defendant's fishing tags will be inspected, that seizure is unlawful if it is not supported by reasonable suspicion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Davidson

Two consecutive, presumptive "true life" sentences imposed under ORS 137.719(1) against a recidivist defendant violates Article I, Section 16 of the Oregon Constitution, when that defendant has five convictions of public indecency for public masturbation without any sexually violent behavior or conduct.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Ene

Evidence is properly suppressed when it is obtained through an unlawful seizure. A seizure occurs when an officer announces that a defendant's fishing tags will be inspected, that seizure is unlawful if it is not supported by reasonable suspicion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Hamlin v. Hamlin

A trial court may use extrinsic evidence when reforming a decedent’s will when both parties seek reformation before the court, and each party offers a different intention for the will’s reformation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trusts and Estates

Tseng v. Tseng

Under ORS 130.710(1), after a settlor’s death, a trustee of a revocable trust must provide information about the administration of the trust during the settlor’s lifetime to qualified beneficiaries of the trust such that those beneficiaries have the material facts necessary to protect their interests.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trusts and Estates

Bova v. City of Medford

Under ORS 243.303(2), local governments are obligated to provide some health insurance to both current and retired employees, but may be relieved from such obligation to retired employees if the local government can show that providing healthcare insurance is unduly burdensome to the city because of cost or other circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Doyle v. City of Medford

ORS 243.303(2) does not create a tort-based private right of action, but an adversely-affected retired local government employee may seek remedy through the Declaratory Judgments Act, as well as supplemental relief including economic damages for the cost of obtaining substitute health insurance.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

Johnson v. Premo

A party to a judgment by the Court of Appeals may petition to modify the written opinion to correct factual errors. If the petition is correct, the Court may allow the modification.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Kiltow v. SAIF

A decision by the Workers' Compensation Appellate Review Unit that an insurer prematurely closed a claim does not have a preclusive effect on the Court of Appeals or the Workers' Compensation Board. Furthermore, an insurer does not act unlawfully by removing a condition from a claim if it is determined that the condition was never part of the compensable injury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Piazza v. Kellim

Under Oregon tort law, a plaintiff must plead and prove foreseeability of harm from third-party criminal action by showing (1) the defendant’s conduct caused a foreseeable risk; (2) the risk was to an interest of a kind that the law protects against negligent invasion; (3) the defendant’s conduct was unreasonable considering the risk; (4) the conduct caused the plaintiff’s harm; and (5) the plaintiff was within the class of persons and the harm was within the general type of potential injuries that made the defendant’s conduct negligent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Gibbons

Under Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution, a police officer's decision to randomly "run" the plates of a car is constitutional if that officer's decision resulted from a confluence of training, time, and opportunity, and that officer would have "run" the plates from any other passing driver.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Weiker v. Douglas County School Dist. No. 4

Under ORS 656.245(1)(a), medical treatment is only compensable when its purpose is to cure a condition caused in material part by a previously accepted, compensable condition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Eugene

Under ORS 181.854(4) of the Oregon Public Records Law, records of an internal investigation of a police officer's conduct are generally protected from disclosure if that investigation does not result in discipline. A trial court properly denies such requests when it properly balances the competing interests of the public and the public office by favorably presuming disclosure is required.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

SAIF v. DeMarco

Under ORS 656.005(7)(a)(A), a new/omitted condition is compensable if the major contributing cause of that consequential condition is a compensable injury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

SAIF v. Durant

Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), a determination that a workplace injury is a consequential condition does not violate the Last Injurious Exposure Rule if the prior condition was determined both compensable and the major contributing cause of the current condition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Epps

Under ORS 813.011, a defendant convicted of DUII who has been previously convicted of DUII at least twice in the prior 10 years may not have a suspended or reduced sentence from the mandatory 90-day incarceration.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Kim

Under Article I, Section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, the right to effective counsel at a criminal trial may only be waived if the record reflects that the defendant “voluntarily and intelligently” waived his right to an attorney.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Ardizzone

Under OEC 404(3), a trial court does not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of past criminal convictions offered to prove a criminal defendant's intent, so long as the trial court properly balances the relevance and prejudicial impact of the evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Hendrickson Trucking, Inc. v. ODOT

Under OAR 137-003-0528, if an issue of fact is in dispute, ODOT must provide a hearing to determine whether good cause exists for a late petition for reassessment of road-use taxes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Munoz

In a murder trial, a defendant is not prejudiced by a trial court’s failure to provide a concurrence instruction when two alternative factual ways of proving the “causes” element of the crime exist.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Smith v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

OAR 859-050-0010 was a validly adopted administrative rule under the guiding statutes ORS 183.413 and ORS 161.346 because the rule included a non-exhaustive, incomplete list of prehearing notice requirements that did not exclude other items that may be required under other statutes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Dept. of Human Services v. E.L.G.

A no-contact order between incestuous parents in a juvenile dependency case may only prohibit sexual contact under ORS 163.525, rather than no-contact whatsoever.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Couch Investments, LLC v. Peverieri

An arbitrator does not exceed its authority under ORS 36.695(3) to order "just and appropriate" remedies when the arbitration agreement fails to lay out express award guidelines.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

SAIF v. Traner

Under ORS 656.262, when a workers' compensation claimant requests acceptance of a new or omitted medical condition, the insurer must clearly either accept or deny the claim within 60 days, or else the insurer may be required to pay the claimant's attorney fees even if no compensation or penalties are assessed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Schnur

Under OEC 404(3), it is not plain error for a trial court to instruct the jury that it may use evidence of a past guilty plea when determining whether a defendant committed actus reus of the charged crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Simonov

A conviction under ORS 164.135(1)(a) for unauthorized use of a vehicle may only be reached if the jury finds that defendant knowingly used the vehicle without the consent of its owner.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Stoeckert v. Nooth

Under ORS 138.580 and Ogle v. Nooth, 355 Or. 570 (2014), in order to receive a hearing, a petitioner for post-conviction relief need only show prima facie evidence “sufficient to submit the case to the factfinder” that, if true, would permit the court to rule in favor of the petitioner.

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

5 Star, Inc. v. Atlantic Casualty Ins. Co.

Under ORS 701.105(2003), in order to show unlawful contract reformation, a plaintiff must show that a new insurer agreed to the terms of a former insurance policy to be bound by that former policy. To prove negligent procurement of insurance, a plaintiff must show that defendant insurance agent was an agent of the particular insurer under ORS 744.078(4).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

State v. Larson

When determining whether to set aside a conviction under ORS 137.225, a court may only consider the circumstances and behavior manifested by a criminal defendant's conduct for the 10-year period after conviction.

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

Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co.

Under ORS 742.524(1)(a), personal injury protection (PIP) medical benefits do not include a covered individual’s transportation costs incurred when attending medical appointments or obtaining medication.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

State v. Nistler

Under ORS 131.125(8), the statute of limitations for aggravated first-degree theft is three years, unless a theory of continuing criminal action is set forth in the indictment, which may toll the statute of limitations.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Nunes

A single criminal episode of possession during which a defendant felon has continuous actual or constructive possession of a firearm is not subject to the ORS 161.067 "anti-merger statute."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Paniagua

Under OEC 608(1), a defense witness may not offer character testimony if that witness has insufficient contact with the individual against whom the testimony is directed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Intel Corp. v. Batchler

Under ORS 656.268(10) and ORS 656.340(12), with each accepted claim for a work-compensable injury, an injured worker must be compensated for a minimum of 16 months, and may also be compensated for a maximum of 21 months with agreement from a self-insured employer.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Cook

An erroneous attorney fee award is not reversible if the error is unpreserved for appeal, not plain on the face of the record, and invited by the appellant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

???Portland Fire Fighters’ Assn. v. City of Portland

Under ORS 243.672(1)(g), it is an unfair labor practice for a party to fail to comply with the results of an agreed-upon binding arbitration.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

K.E.A. v. Halvorson

Under ORS 30.866(1)(c), a stalking protective order shouldn’t have been issued when a respondent drives through a petitioner’s neighborhood three times and only makes contact with members of petitioner’s household as a response, despite respondent’s history of infrequent incidents of anger and aggression towards others.

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

PUC v. Employment Department

Under ORS 657.176(2)(c), a claimant is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits when that claimant’s good cause for voluntarily leaving is based on medical necessity with no reasonable alternative and when the claimant has medical leave available through employment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Pumphrey

Under ORS 137.106, a Defendant must pay restitution for economic damages incurred by violating a stalking protective order so long as there is a “but for” causal relationship between the criminal activity and the resulting the economic damages.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Rudnitskyy

Under Art. I, Sec. 9 of the Oregon Constitution, or the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police "stop" occurs when a reasonable person would believe that an officer either physically restrains a citizen's liberty in a significant way, or engages in a "show of authority" that reasonably conveys to the person a significant restriction on that person's freedom.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Berrellez

Under Art. I, sec. 10 of the Oregon Constitution and former ORS 135.747 (2011), a defendant’s defense is not unreasonably prejudiced by an 8-year delay due to evasion of police, destruction of non-valuable case notes, and the death of a witness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Patton v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Co.

If a homeowner's insurance policy contains ambiguous provisions relating to the time-frame in which an insured may recover, those provisions are held against the drafter of the policy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

State v. Gonzales

A police officer cannot rely on the "good-faith exception" to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to impound a car that does not impede traffic or pose a threat to safety when that police officer should have been on notice that the "community-caretaker exception" does not apply.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Gallegos

A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for continuance when a Defendant cannot show that an eyewitness could "be produced."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Tooley

Under ORS 131.505(4), multiple murders committed in furtherance of an overarching criminal objective are part of the same criminal episode, despite a gap in time between the commission of each murder.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Munson v. Valley Energy Investment Fund

Under ORCP 21(A)(1), a trial court errs when it rules based on necessarily decided disputed issues of material fact.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Ringler

A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying repeated motions for continuance when the record reflects that the moving party has not established good cause for a continuance.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Michel

Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, a renter does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy within the common area of a public storage facility.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Cross

Under ORS 137.751, a trial court is no longer required to find “substantial and compelling reasons” to deny a defendant eligibility for alternative incarceration programs and early release.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Ritchie

Under ORS 138.071, if a defendant fails to appeal a judgment within 30 days, he cannot appeal a supplemental judgment entered afterwards because the same issues could have been raised after the first judgment was entered.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Burciaga

Under O.R.S. 163.205(1)(a), a parent commits a crime of criminal mistreatment in the first degree if that parent withholds essential attention that is necessary to provide for a child’s basic bodily needs and survival.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Kelly

Pursuant to ORAP 5.45, Appellate courts have broad discretion to determine the prejudice of a plain error committed in the circuit court. Furthermore, sentencing guidelines may be discretionary with regards to unranked offenses. Finally, unspecified pleadings which are subsequently substantiated by discovery are not in error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Straughan

Under former ORS 135.747 (2011), an unjustified delay of trial for nearly seven months out of 21 months of delay in general is unreasonable, and must be dismissed without showing of "sufficient reason" to continue the case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Mannix

Pursuant to ORS 136.220, a juror who is committed to becoming related to a primary witness does not have implied bias. Pursuant to ORAP 5.45, a party may not raise claims of error that are not preserved on the trial court record, even if it is a plain error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Vanburen

Under ORS 98.005, in order for an officer to conduct a warrantless search of a closed bag, the officer’s subjective belief that the property is lost must be objectively reasonable—only then may the officer search the property to identify its owner.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Davis

Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, police inventory procedures may constitute an unlawful search if they have no precise or meaningful limitations.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Lewis v. Beyer

Under OAR 860-022-0041, the “automatic adjustment clauses” determined by the Public Utility Commission only apply to taxes levied on or after January 1, 2006. Furthermore, attorney’s fees are not appropriate in this case under ORS 183 (Administrative Procedures Act).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law