Kayla Mahoney

Oregon Supreme Court (6 summaries)

Larisa’s Home Care, LLC v. Nichols-Shields

A person’s estate is unjustly enriched if the person receives benefits through misrepresentations about his or her finances. In re Anderson’s Estate, 157 Or 365, 71 P2d 1013 (1937).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Gadalean v. SAIF

Under ORS 656.005(30), a “worker” is “any person, including a minor whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, who engages to furnish services for a remuneration, subject to the direction and control of an employer."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Andersen

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement applies only if a car is mobile when an officer first encounters it in the investigation of a crime. However, the officer need not visually see the vehicle in motion. An officer can perform a warrantless search or seizure of a vehicle if the officer is able to reasonably infer that the vehicle has “momentarily come to a rest.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Maciel-Figueroa

An officer has reasonable suspicion for a lawful investigatory stop when “an officer can point to specific and articulable facts that give rise to a reasonable inference that the defendant committed or was about to commit a specific crime or type of crime.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Morgan

Under ORS 164.405(1)(b), a person is guilty of second-degree robbery if (1) they committed third-degree robbery and (2) was "aided by another person actually present". The state is required to prove that the person who aided defendant acted with the intent to facilitate the robbery.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Jesse

Expert testimony is properly excluded if it does not provide evidence that is helpful to the trier of fact.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Oregon Court of Appeals (40 summaries)

State v. Husk

Under ORS 811.370, a motorist must drive exclusively in a single lane unless there is a valid reason (e.g. a road hazard) that “makes it impracticable,” or he is attempting to switch lanes but is confirming it is safe to do so. State v. McBroom, 179 Or App 120, 125-26, 39 P3d 226 (2002).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Traffic Infractions

State v. Williams

A defendant may invoke his right to proceed without representation midtrial, however, a court is permitted to deny the motion if it could result in disruption or delay. State v. Hightower, 361 Or 412, 418, 393 P3d 224 (2017). The record must show that “the trial court actually weighed the relevant competing interests involved.” Id at 421.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Coates

ORS 161.635(1) provides that a defendant cannot be ordered to pay more than $6,250 fine for a Class A misdemeanor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Powell

A warrantless search is per se invalid, unless it falls into one of the clearly defined warrant requirement exceptions. State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177, 149 P3d 1155 (2006).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Trail v. Haney

Under ORS 18.005(13), a limited judgment must fit into certain categories, one being “a judgment entered under ORCP 67 B or 67 G.” In order to apply 67 B, “the court must have determined a ‘claim.’ [A] motion for sanctions under ORCP 46 D does not constitute a claim within the meaning of ORCP 67;” therefore, sanctions under ORCP 47 are not appealable. Baugh v. Bryant Limited Partnerships, 98 Or App 419, 423 779 P2d 1071 (1989)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. M. L. S.

A failure to provide all information proscribed by ORS 427.265 may be harmless error if the party received all if that information from an alternative source. State v. S. J. F., 247 Or App 321, 326-28, 269 P3d 83 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Buchwalter-Drumm v. Dept. of Human Services

Under the Oregon Tort Claims Act, a minor’s actual or imputed knowledge begins the statutorily required notice period, however, a minor’s claim is not tolled by an adult relative until they become a guardian ad litem. Banda v. Danner, 87 Or App 69, 73 (1987), aff’d 307 Or 302 (1988).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Wooten

ORS 164.405(1) has two different subsections that address the same coercive effect and threat of violence but nonetheless creates only a single crime of second degree robbery. State v. Behen, 230 Or App 31, 34, 213 P3d 851 (2009)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Marks

“Two or more offenses may be charged in the same charging instrument in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged are alleged to have been committed by the same person and are … connected together or constitut[ed] parts of a common scheme or plan.” ORS 132.560(1)(b)(C).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Mendoza

“A court cannot impose fees based on pure speculation that a defendant has funds to pay the fees or may acquire them in the future.” State v. Pendergrapht, 251 Or App 630, 634 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Ortega

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, when a defendant requests to exercise his or her right to self-representation, the trial court must make a determination on the record (1) whether the defendant’s request for self-representation is “an intelligent and understanding decision”; and (2) “whether granting the defendant’s request would disrupt the judicial process.” State v. Miller, 254 Or App 514, 522-23 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Dept. of Human Services v. L. S. H.

Jurisdiction of a child is permissible when a parent admits to an allegation, even if the allegation is “ambiguous and susceptible to multiple interpretations” if one of those interpretations would allow DHS to present evidence that is sufficient to prove jurisdiction is necessary. Dept. of Human Services v. D.D., 238 Or App 134, 140-141, 241 P3d 1177, 1181 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 602 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Guembes v. Roberts

Pursuant to ORS 19.270, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to decide the merits of an appeal in the absence of a new or amended notice to appeal if the initial notice was filed prematurely. Assoc. Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condo. v. Warren, 242 Or App 425, 436-37, 256 P3d 146 (2011), aff’d on other grounds, 352 Or 583, 288 P3d 958 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Velasquez

A person could be guilty of initiating a false report under ORS 162.375 if a "sufficient nexus" exists between a defendant's statements and the initial false report.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dept. of Human Services v. J. R. D. 286 Or App 55 (2017)

Under ORS 419B.150(3, “A rehearing before a judge of the juvenile court may be determined on the same evidence introduced before the referee … but, in any case, additional evidence may be presented.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

White v. Premo

Under ORS 138.550, successive petitions for post-conviction relief are procedurally barred from raising the same grounds for relief asserted in a previous petition. Cunio v. Premo, 284 Or App 698 (2017). 

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

Dept. of Human Services v. D. I. R.

There must be sufficient evidence on the record to support the juvenile court’s determination concerning the possibility to return a child home in reasonable time. Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 283 Or App 367, 394, 388 P3d 417, rev allowed, 361 Or 350 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Henley v. Employment Dept.

Under ORS 657.176(2)(c), "good cause" for voluntarily leaving work is "such that a reasonable and prudent person of normal sensitivity, exercising ordinary common sense, would leave work."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Tapp

Under Article I, section 9, an officer has reasonable suspicion to extend a stop for investigatory purposes if the officer suspects the person has committed or was about to commit a specific crime. State v Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Stoltz v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.

Under ORS 656.236(a)(1), a claim disposition agreement (CDA) waives or resolves all matters that could arise out of a claim, not just those currently known to arise out of the claim,with the exception of medical services, “unless those rights are expressly reserved.” Rash v. McKinstry Co., 331 Or 665, 20 P3d 197 (2001).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Augustus v. Board of Nursing

"In general, to preserve a contention for appeal or judicial review, a party must provide the lower court or agency with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court or agency is able to consider the point and avoid committing error." Becklin v. Board of Examiners for Engineering, 195 Or App 186, 199- 200 (2004).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Masood v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Oregon

Under ORS 20.310(2), costs and disbursement on appeal include “the transcript of testimony or other proceedings, when necessarily forming part of the record on appeal.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

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

Under ORS 419B.476(2)(a), DHS makes "reasonable efforts" if it gives a parent a fair opportunity to demonstrate the ability to adjust his or her behavior and act as a "minimally adequate" parent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. A.F.

To prevail against parents’ motion to dismiss jurisdiction, DHS is required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time of the hearing: (1) the facts upon which jurisdiction was based continue, (2) those facts continue to expose the child to a risk of serious loss or injury, and (3) the risk will likely be realized should the court terminate the wardship and dismiss jurisdiction. Dept. of Human Services v. T. L., 279 Or App 673, 678, 379 P3d 741 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Tiner v. Premo

A criminal defendant is entitled to post-conviction relief if the State withholds material evidence that is favorable to the defendant. Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963).

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

State v. Bliss

The Oregon automobile exception applies to any lawful stop of a moving vehicle if an officer develops probable cause to search for contraband or evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Wilson

The officer safety doctrine is supported by an officer’s “reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that an individual ‘might pose an immediate threat of serious physical injury’ to officers or others” State. Bates, 304 Or 519, 524-25 (1987).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dept. of Human Services v. S. E. K. H./J. K. H.

Under ORS 419B.337, juvenile courts have the authority to review placement decisions made by the Department of Human Services, but cannot compel the department to place children in specific living arrangements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Smith v. DCBS

A memorandum informing a person of existing law acts as an announcement, not a rule, under the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act, thus, not eligible for judicial review under ORS 183.400.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v Rogers

A party that invites an error may not obtain a reversal on appeal based on that error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Jimerson v. Rosenblum

A ballot summary that is not concise and impartial must be modified to comply with ORS 250.035.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Election Law

State v. Westcott

An officer may acquire reasonable suspicion by taking into consideration less probative factors only to give context to more significant factors under the totality of the circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Miller v. Columbia County

Probable cause for an arrest defeats any claim of false arrest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Oregon v. Codon

Prohibition against vouching evidence does not apply to evidence given for contextual purposes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Bull Mountain Meadows, LLC, v. Frontier Communications Northwest, Inc.

Under ORS 174.109, an entity acts as a public body once an agency relationship is established either through expressed or implied agreements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Zybach v. Perryman

Summary judgment granted on the doctrines of issue preclusion and claim preclusion may be upheld if there is no issue of material fact as a matter of law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Scott v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.

Under 656.26(11) a person is entitled to compensation for temporary total disability, penalties, and attorney fees when “an objectively reasonable insurer” would understand medical reports as releasing an employee from work.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Musgrave

Plain error review is not appropriate for a trial court’s imposition of attorney fees when the record indicates evidence of a person's source of income, educational background, and prospect of future employment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

T.K. v. Stutzman

Under the Family Abuse Protection Act, a petitioner requesting a temporary restraining order must meet each of the following requirements: (1) that petitioner has been the victim of abuse committed by the respondent within 180 days preceding the filing of the petition, (2) that there is an imminent danger of further abuse to the petitioner and (3) that the respondent represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Abuse Prevention Act

K.M.J. v. Captain

It is legal error for a trial court to deny cross-examination of an opponent witness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure