Oregon Supreme Court (5 summaries)
Eddy v. Anderson
“'[I]f the landlord neither knew nor reasonably should have known of the condition that constituted noncompliance,’ and the 'tenant knew or reasonably should have known of the condition and failed to give actual notice to the landlord in a reasonable time prior’ to the damage, the tenant is not 'entitled to recover damages’ for the landlord’s noncompliance with the habitability requirements.” ORS 90.360(2). ORS 90.370(1)(a) requires a tenant to “prove that[,] prior to the filing of the landlord’s action[,] the landlord reasonably had or should have had knowledge or had received actual notice of the facts that constitute the tenant’s counterclaim.”
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
State v. Black
“The rule against vouching prohibits a witness from making a direct comment, or one that is tantamount to a direct comment, on another witness’s credibility.” State v. Beauvais, 357 Or 524, 545, 354 P3d 680 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Taylor
“The ‘guarantee of trial by an “impartial jury” means trial by a jury that is not biased in favor of or against either party, but is influenced in making its decision only by evidence produced at trial and legal standards provided by the trial court.’” State v. Amini, 331 Or 384, 391, 15 P3d 541 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Swan
“When a suspect’s decision to submit to a breath test derived from a violation of his or her Article 1, section 11, right to counsel, both the decision and the test results are subject to suppression.” State v. Spencer, 305 Or. 59, 75-76, 750 P.2d 147 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Ball
“The Oregon Constitution provides that the victim of a crime has the right ‘to be heard at . . . sentencing.’” Or. Const., Art. I, §42(1)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (65 summaries)
State v. Formby-Carter
“Evidence of defendant’s previous criminal convictions and the underlying facts was relevant and admissible to prove ‘defendant’s mental state, as well as * * * absence of mistake or accident.’” State v. Johns, 301 Or 535, 725 P2d 312 (1986); OEC 404(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Schnitzer v. Schnitzer
"Dictionary definitions… ‘do not tell us what words mean, only what words can mean, depending on their context and the particular manner in which they are used.'” State v. Cloutier, 351 Or 68, 96, 261 P3d 1234 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Kirkpatrick
“[A]n offense in another jurisdiction is only considered comparable to an Oregon felony sex crime if the two have ‘elements that are the same * * * or nearly the same.’” State v. Carlton, 361 Or 29, 43, 388 P3d 1093 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. C. K.
"A person meets the 'basic needs' definition of a '[p]erson with a mental illness' . . . if the person is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs in a way that leaves the person at nonspeculative risk of 'serious physical harm’–meaning that the person's safe survival will be compromised–in the near future, even though that risk is not imminent." State v. M.A.E., 299 Or App 231, 240, 448 P3d 656 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Sternberg v. Lechman-Su
Under ORCP 47 G, "a court 'shall order' a party who presented an ORCP 47 affidavit or declaration in bad faith 'to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses that the filing of the affidavit or declaration caused the other party to incur, including reasonable attorney fees." "The phrase 'attorney's fees,' when used in the context of an attorney fee award, means the reasonable value of an attorney's services, whether or not the client was required to pay for those services." Menasha Forest Products Corp. v. Curry County Title, 50 Or 81, 89, 249 P3d 1265 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Olson
Fourth-degree assault is a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, if “[t]he person commits the assault knowing that the victim is pregnant.” ORS 163.160(3)(d).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. G. P. B.
“A party opposing a change of permanency plan to adoption has the burden of proving the presence of a compelling reason to forgo that plan change.” Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 364 Or 37, 430 P3d 1021 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Miller
“An indictment that charges more than one offense must allege one or more of the bases for joinder in ORS 132.560(1)(b)(A) to (C): that the charges are ‘[o]f the same or similar character,’ ‘[b]ased on the same act or transaction,’ or ‘[b]ased on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.’ If the indictment does not allege the basis for joinder, then the defendant may demur to the indictment.” State v. Warren, 364 Or 105, 121-22, 430 P3d 1036 (2018); ORS 135.630(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Hammond v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.
“If a compensable injury combines with a preexisting disease or condition to cause or prolong disability or need for treatment, the resultant condition is compensable only to the extent that the compensable injury is and remains the major contributing cause of the disability or need for treatment.” ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Allen
“The defendant’s substantial step must be toward the crime that he intends personally to commit, not a crime that will be committed by someone else.” State v. Kimbrough, 364 Or 66, 84, 431 P3d 76 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
D. R. S. v. Baker
“An elderly person who has been the victim of abuse within the preceding 180 days may petition the circuit court for relief, if the person is in immediate and present danger of further abuse from the abuse.” ORS 124.010.
Area(s) of Law:- Elder Law
Kasner and Kasner
“ORS 107.452 authorizes ‘relief from a dissolution judgment for the fraudulent concealment of the true ownership of a significant asset belonging to the parties or either of them, even if the existence of the asset was known before the entry of judgment.’” Conrad and Conrad, 191 Or App 283, 292, 81 P3d 749 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dept. of Human Services v. C. L. R.
“A juvenile court may assert dependency jurisdiction over a child whose ‘condition or circumstances are such as to endanger the welfare of the [child] or of others.’” ORS 419B.100(1)(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
S. P. Z. v. Kirkwood
“Intimate partner is defined as a person to be ‘the person’s spouse, the person’s former spouse, a parent of the person’s child or another person who has cohabitated or is cohabitations with the person in a relationship akin to a spouse.’” ORS 166.255(3)(d).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
Dept. of Human Services v. K. J.
“Because ORS 419B.343(1)(a) requires DHS to ensure that its case planning for family reunification ‘bears a rational relationship’ to the findings that brought the child within the court’s jurisdiction, ORS 419B.337(2) grants the juvenile court authority to order DHS to provide a service only if the service bears a ‘rational relationship to the jurisdictional findings.’” State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. G. L., 220 Or App 216, 222, 185 P3d 483, rec den, 345 Or 158 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. A. F.
“If evidence in the record rationally leads the juvenile court to believe that a parent’s mental health might be contributing to an established jurisdiction basis, it is permissible for the court to order an evaluation of the parent to determine whether a mental health issue in fact exists.” Dept. of Human Services v. L.G., 250 Or App 290, 291, 280 P3d 396 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Nelson
“When an officer ‘makes a direct and unambiguous accusation’ that an individual has committed a violation or crime, the officer has stopped that individual.” State v. Jackson, 268 Or app 139, 149, 342 P3d 119 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Central Oregon LandWatch v. Crook County
“A local government may still find land unsuitable for farm uses due to its size or location, but size or location may not be the sole basis for that finding if the land ‘can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land.’” ORS 215.284(2)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. F.R.S.
“The state’s line of reasoning cannot make ‘too great an inferential leap,’ or require ‘the stacking of inferences to the point of speculation’ to draw a particular conclusion.” State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460, 467, 83 P3d 379 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Middleton
“A stop is a seizure that must be justified by reasonable suspicion that a crime or probable cause traffic infraction has been committed; a stop may last only as long as is reasonably required for the officer to complete an investigation.” State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 370-71, 182 P3d 209 (2008). “Incriminating evidence that police obtain during an unlawful extension of a stop is subject to suppression.” Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Horseman
“ORS 137.690 imposes a mandatory minimum term of 25 years [300 months] for a person who has been convicted of more than one ‘major felony sex crime,’ a term that includes ‘the crime of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct.’” State v. Carey-Martin, 293 Or App 611, 613 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Garcia
“[A] court will make a sufficient record under Mayfield if the trial court’s ruling, considered in light of the parties’ arguments, demonstrates the court balanced the appropriate considerations.” State v. Anderson, 363 Or 392, 406, 423 P3d 43 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Rainey
“The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a), (b), or (c) do not apply to subscribers or members of their family who perform the acts prohibited in subsection (1) of this section in their homes.” ORS 165.540(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
DHS v. M.T.P.
“DHS is required to initiate a petition to terminate parental rights under these circumstances unless ‘there is a compelling reason, which is documented in the case plan, for determining that filing such a petition would not be in the best interests of the child.’” ORS 419B.498(2)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
D.R.M. v. Woods
“Despite the lack of an explicit threat, the court may look at the totality of the circumstances to determine that a respondent has, with the requisite mental state, placed a petitioner in fear of imminent serious bodily injury and in immediate danger of further abuse.” Lefebvre v. Lefebvre, 165 Or App 297, 302, 996 P2d 518 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
Makarios-Oregon, LLC v. Ross Dress-for-Less, Inc
For a party to succeed “on a fee-generating claim that shares common issues with other claims or unsuccessful efforts, time spent working on those matters is recoverable if it ‘was reasonably incurred to achieve the success that the [party] eventually enjoyed in the litigations[.]’” Fadel v. El-Tobgy, 245 Or App 696, 709-10, 264 P3d 150 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Chandler
“Because a person who must report has 10 days after release to sign the form, it follows that that person cannot ‘fail to sign’ the form before 10 days have elapsed.” See State v. Depeche, 242 Or App 155, 163, 255 P3d 502 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Wilcox v. Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon
“The enacted purposes of the SCRA are to provide for the national defense by postponing the time limit for servicemembers to pursue and defend claims–thereby enabling servicemembers ‘to devote their entire energy to the defendant needs of the Nation’ and ‘to provide for the temporary suspension of judicial *** proceedings *** that may adversely affect the civil rights of servicemembers during their military service.’” 50 USC 3902(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
City of Corvallis v. Pi Kappa Phi
“A criminal municipal ordinance can conflict with ‘the criminal laws of the State or Oregon’ for purposes of Article XI, section 2, if it criminalizes behavior that the legislature has chosen should not be subject to criminal sanction, whether that legislative choice is itself reflected in a criminal statute or in a different statutory provision.” State v. Tyler, 168 Or App 600, 604, 7 P3d 624 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
State v. Stroud
“Even if the main issue in controversy has been resolved, collateral consequences may prevent the controversy from being moot under some circumstances.” Barnes v. Thompson, 159 Or App 383, 386, 977 P2d 431 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
SAIF v. Dunn
“An ‘occupation disease’ is defined to include ‘any series of traumatic events or occurrences which requires medical services or results in physical disability or death,’ ORS 656.802, and, ‘prior work injuries may be considered as part of the overall “employment conditions” when evaluating the major contributing cause of an occupation disease.” Hunter v. SAIF, 246 Or App 755, 760, 268 P3d 660 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Ibarra
“In order to meaningfully ‘oppose’ such a motion under ORS 138.225, an appellant must file a response explaining why the arguments in the opening brief do present a substantial question of law, to the end that the state should file a brief and the appeal be orally argued.” State v. Ibarra, 293 Or App 268, 272 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Ibarra
“In order to meaningfully ‘oppose’ such a motion under ORS 138.225, an appellant must file a response explaining why the arguments in the opening brief do present a substantial question of law, to the end that the state should file a briefed and the appeal be orally argued.” State v. Ibarra, 293 Or. App. 268, 272 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Ortega v. Martin
“The immunity provided by ORS 105.682 applies only to an owner of land who ‘directly or indirectly permits any person to use the land for recreational purposes.’” ORS 105.682. “To be entitled to recreational immunity, an owner of an interest in land must have made a volitional decision to open the land to the public for recreational use.” Landis v. Limbaugh, 282 Or App 284, 291, 385 P3d 1139, 1143 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. M. B.
“A juvenile court probation violation proceeding that is the type of juvenile court ‘adjudicatory hearing,’ within the meaning of ORS 419A.190, bars subsequent proceedings arising out of allegations based on the same conduct.” State v. S.-Q.K., 292 Or App 836, 847-48 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Iseli
“A declarant’s hearsay statements are admissible against a party ‘who engaged in, directed or otherwise participated in wrongful conduct that was intended to cause the declarant to be unavailable as a witness, and did cause the declarant to be unavailable.’” OEC 804(3)(g); see State v. Supanchick, 354 Or 737, 766, 323 P3d 231 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. White
“Evidence of other, uncharged abuse can be probative of the reasons for delayed reporting of the charged conduct: ‘The repeated association between the pursuer and the pursued may be directly relevant to demonstrate why [a] victim failed to complain about the initial sex act once the pursuer stopped pestering her. [A] victim may be properly allowed to testify to facts from which a jury could infer reasons for the delayed reporting.’” State v. Zybach, 308 Or. 96, 100, 775 P.2d 318 (1989).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Dahlke v. Jubie
“Parties opposing summary judgment have the burden of producing evidence that creates a material issue of fact as to those issues, but only to those issues.” Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or. 319, 326, 325 P.3d 707 (2014). “That means that issues not ‘raised in the motion’ are not properly before the trial court on summary judgment.” Eklof v. Steward, 360 Or. 717, 731, 385 P.3d 1074 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Tanner and Tanner
For purposes of calculating child support, OAR 137-050-0710 requires a determination of each parent’s income. OAR 137-050-0715 defines ‘[actual] income’ as . . . a parent’s gross earnings and income from any source, including sources listed in section (4).” OAR 137-050-0715(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Kailash Ecovillage, LLC v. Santiago
“Under ORS 90.155(1), a landlord is permitted to use nail and mail service only if the parties’ rental agreement affords the tenant a ‘reciprocal right’ to use nail and mail service.” American Property Management Corporation v. Nikaia, 230 Or. App. 321, 328, 215 P.3d 906 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Meyer v. Oregon Lottery
“A government employer ‘can violate its employees’ rights to privacy and intimate association either by impermissibly investigation their private sexual conduct or by taking adverse employment action on the basis of such private conduct.’” Perez v. City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 857 (9th Cir. 2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Tri-Met v. Walnut Hill, LLC
"'Common ownership’ is not established simply because an LLC owns one parcel and the owners of the LLC own the neighboring parcel.” Dept. of Transportation v. Pilothouse 60, LLC, 220 Or. App. 203, 213, 185, P.3d 487, rev den, 345 Or. 417 (2008).
Dept. of Human Services v. T. F.
“Under ORS 109.751(1), a court can take temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is in the state and is in immediate need of the court’s protection from mistreatment or abuse.” State v. L.P.L.O., 280 Or. App. 292, 306, 381 P.3d 846 (2016). “Temporary emergency jurisdiction is an ‘extraordinary jurisdiction reserved for extraordinary circumstances.’” Id
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. L. O. W.
“The statutory requirement that physicians give notice ‘immediately’ of an involuntary hold, taken together with the requirement that courts commence proceedings ‘immediately’ upon receiving such notice, plainly contemplate that commitment actions must proceed rapidly following the initial deprivation of a person’s liberty, consistent with the extraordinary nature of such a deprivation.” ORS 426.234(2)-(4); cf. also Addington v. Texas, 441 US 418, 425, 99 S. Ct. 1804 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Air Rescue Systems Corp. v. Lewis
“To establish contempt of court based on ORS 33.015(2)(b), plaintiffs [must] prove that ‘(1) there was a facially valid court order, (2) the defendant knew of the order and (3) the defendant voluntarily failed to comply with the order.’” State v. Graham, 251 Or. App. 217, 220, 284 P.3d 515 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Noorzai
“[W]henever a piece of evidence is offered there must be certain minimum assurances that the evidence is what it purports to be, what it is offered as being [,] and what its value depends on.” Legislative Commentary to OEC 901, reprinted in Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Oregon Evidence 901.02, at 947 (6th ed 2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Dept. of Human Services v. T.M.D.
“Where a parent is unable or unwilling to rehabilitate himself or herself within a reasonable time * * * the best interests of the child(ren) generally will require termination of that parent’s parental rights.” State ex rel Juv. Dept v. Geist, 310 Or. 176, 189, 796 P.2d 1193 (1990).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Rives
“Where an eyewitness has been exposed to suggestive police procedures, the trial court has a ‘heightened role as an evidentiary gatekeeper because “traditional” methods of testimony reliability–like cross-examination–can be ineffective at discrediting unreliable or inaccurate eyewitness identification evidence.’” Lawson/James, 352 Or. 724, 758, 291 P.3d 673, 694-95 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Guffey
“Oregon cases interpreting Brady have required defendant to make some showing, beyond mere speculation, that the evidence he seeks will be favorable to him and material to his guilt or innocence.” State v. Spada, 33 Or. App. 257, 259, 576 P.2d 33, 34 (1978).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Rosales
“An officer may not conduct investigations unrelated to the stop’s mission ‘in a way that prolongs the stop, absent reasonably suspicion.’ A dog sniff is aimed at detecting ‘ordinary criminal wrongdoing’ and is ‘not ordinary incent of a traffic stop.’” Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1615 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Siragusa and Siragusa
"Provisions of a stipulated dissolution agreement, although approved by the court and incorporation into a dissolution judgment, are interpreted in accordance with principles of contract construction," McDonnal and McDonnal, 293 Or. 772, 780, 652 P.2d 1247, 1251 (1982), "taking into consideration the intent of the parties, the circumstances under which it was made, and the entire instrument." Waterman v. Armstrong, 291 Or. 551, 558, 633 P.2d 774, 778 (1981).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Peterson
“An out-of-court statement about the credibility of a witness is subject to the categorical prohibition against vouching evidence only if the statement is offered the truth of credibility opinion that it expresses.” State v. Chandler, 360 Or. 323, 334, 380 P.3d 932, 938 (2016). Additionally, a court may enter separate convictions when “the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an elements that others do not.” ORS 161.067(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Murga
“Because punitive contempt is quasi-criminal in nature, an accusatory instrument is required. ORS 33.065(4), (5); see State v. Hauskins, 251 Or. App. 34, 39, 281 P.3d 669, 673 (2012). An accusatory instrument is a ‘grand jury indictment, an information or a complaint.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Metje/Parks v. PERS
“ORS 238.715(2) provides that recovery could be made by civil action or ‘other proceeding.’ The statute does not define ‘other proceeding,’ but an administrative proceeding plainly qualifies as an ‘other proceeding.’” Metje/Parks v. PERS, 291 Or. App. 338, 346 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Bush
“To ensure that a person’s waiver is knowing and voluntary, article 1, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution requires that the police inform a person subjected to custodial interrogation that he has a right to remain silent . . . and any statements the person makes may be used against the person in a criminal prosecution.” State v. Vondehn, 348 Or. 462, 474, 236 P.3d 691, 699 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Rush v. Corvallis School Dist. 509J
“A public body that owes a particular duty of care (such as that owed by a school district to its students who are required to be on school premises during school hours) has wide policy discretion in choosing the means by which to carry out that duty.” Mosley v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 315 Or. 85, 92, 843 P.2d 415, 419 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Dept. of Human Services v. S.A.B.O
To endanger the child's welfare, the circumstances must create a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child and there must be a reasonable likelihood that the threat will be realized." Dept. of Human Services v. S. P., 249 Or. App. 76, 84, 275 P.3d 979, 984 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Walker
“In determining whether a case presents a ‘proper occasion’ to give the instruction described in ORS 10.095(3), the court must ‘determine, from all the testimony, whether or not there has been sufficient evidence for the jury to decide that at least one witness consciously testified falsely.’” State v. Roman, 288 Or. App. 441, 445, 406 P.3d 1119, 1121-22 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Brown v. City of Grants Pass
“A statute displaces a local ordinance if it ‘unambiguously expresses an intention to preclude local government from regulating’ in the same area as that governed by the statutes.” Rogue Valley Sewer Services v. City of Phoenix, 357 Or. 437, 450, 353 P.3d 581, 588 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
State v. Borba
“Article 1, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to counsel and the right to self-representation,” State v. Hightower, 361 Or. 412, 416, 393 P.3d 224, 266 (2017); however, “[a] criminal defendant may waive the right to be represented by counsel, but the waiver must be voluntarily or knowingly made.” State v. Meyrick, 313 Or. 125, 132, 831 P.2d 666, 670 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Loving
“Touching separate parts of a victim’s body is not, by itself, sufficient to preclude merge of convictions under ORS 161.067(3).” State v. Nelson, 282 Or. App. 427, 436-42, 386 P.3d 73, 79-82 (2016). “Rather, the State must introduce evidence from which the trier of fact could draw a nonspeculative inference that there was a sufficient pause between the acts constituting sexual abuse.” Id. at 446-47.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Hobbs
"The phrase 'a place where unlawful activity involving controlled substances is maintained or conducted,' ORS 163.575(1)(b), refers to a place where a principal or substantial use of the place is to facilitate unlawful drug activity." State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 358, Or. 451, 459, 365 P.3d 116, 120 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. J.M.T.M.
The party that proposes changing a permanency plan to adoption bears the burden of proving that there are no compelling reasons not to proceed with terminating the parent's parental rights. Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 283 Or. App. 367, 392, 388 P.3d 417, 431, rev allowed, 361 Or. 350 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Garcia-Navarro v. State of Oregon
"A trial counsel's obligation is to advise clients that guilty pleas to almost any drug offense will result in 'presumptively mandatory' deportation." Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 369, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1483 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Easley
A court must (1) “consciously conduct the required balancing” of the Mayfield test for admissibility of evidence; and (2) “allow for meaning review of that balancing.” State v. Ydrogo, 289 Or App 488, 492, ___ P3d ___ (2017) (emphasis omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence