Ryan McFarland

Oregon Supreme Court (17 summaries)

Haynes v. Board of Parole

"When a state provides a statutory process for judicial review of a parole decision, inmates have no due process right to be assisted by adequate counsel before the petition for review is denied.” See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 US 551, 555, 107 S Ct 1990, 95 L Ed 2d 539 (1987).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

State v. Garcia

“Under ORS 162.247(3)(a), the state is not precluded from alleging interfering and resisting arrest as alternative charges, even when based on the same acts, and, when the defendant disputes the charges, that the trial court should submit both charges to the jury with an appropriate instruction or verdict form.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Winn

“In determining whether a particular search falls within the scope of a defendant’s consent, the trial court will determine, based on the totality of circumstances, what the defendant actually intended.” State v. Blair, 361 Or. 527, 537 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Smith v. Providence Health & Services – Oregon

In Oregon, “[A] loss of a substantial chance of a better medical outcome can be a cognizable injury in a common-law claim of medical malpractice.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Hightower

Under Article I, Section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, when a defendant attempts to exercise the right to self-representation in the midst of a trial, the exercise of that right is subject to the trial court's discretion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Mazziotti

Under OEC 403, “in a criminal case, when a defendant objects to other acts evidence that is relevant only to prove the defendant’s character under OEC 404(4), the trial court must conduct balancing under OEC 403, according to the terms of that rule, to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.” State v. Baughman, 361 Or 386, 402 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Zavala

Under OEC 404(3), “[i]f other acts evidence is not proffered to prove a defendant’s character, but instead is offered for a nonpropensity purpose, then analysis under OEC 404(4) is unnecessary; the evidence ‘may be admissible’ under the second sentence of OEC 404(3).” State v. Baughman, 361 Or 386, 403-04 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. McNally

Under ORS 162.247(3)(b), the phrase "passive resistance" refers to noncooperation with a peace officer’s lawful order that does not involve violence or active conduct, whatever the motivation for the noncooperation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Barrier v. Beaman

Under OEC 504-1(2), “[a] patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications in a civil action . . . made for the purposes of diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s physical condition.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

In re Roller

When a lawyer fails to frame any challenge to the trial panel’s decision, he or she is not entitled to any different consideration by the court than if he or she had not sought review at all. In re Oh, 350 Or 204, 252 P3d 325 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Professional Responsibility

Eklof v. Steward

Under Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634 (2001), an appellate court may affirm a trial court’s ruling on an alternative basis if, among other things, it can conclude that the record is materially "the same one that would have been developed had the prevailing party raised the alternative basis for affirmance below.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Nay v. Dept. of Human Services

Under ORS 183.400(b), an administrative agency cannot amend a rule in a way which “depart[s] from a legal standard expressed or implied in the particular law being administered.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Barrett v. Peters

Under the Interstate Corrections Compact, ORS 421.245, Article IV, Section 5, an inmate may bring a pettion of habeas corpus in Oregon if he is confined in another state, and a receiving state under the ICC shall not deprive any inmate so confined of any legal rights which inmate would have had if confined Oregon.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

State v.Sokell

For purposes of evaluating of as-applied proportionality challenges to sentences imposed pursuant to ORS 137.719(1), there are three factors: (1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

DIRECTV, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

Under ORS 308.505(3), “data transmission services” means “services that provide the means to send data from one computer or computer-like device to another across a transmission network . . . [w]hether the data that the customer receives is data directed to it by the service provider itself or by some third party” is not a factor in this analysis.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

City of Eugene v. Comcast of Oregon II, Inc.

Under 47 USC § 542(b), a state or local government may require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, including cable operators, to the extent that they provide telecommunications services.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

State v. Turnidge (S059156)

Even if evidence of a defendant’s motive is only circumstantial, the evidence is relevant and not speculative if a jury reasonably and logically could draw an inference of the defendant's motive from the circumstantial evidence alone.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Oregon Court of Appeals (74 summaries)

Benson v. Benson

Under Timm and Timm, 200 Or App 621, 629 (2005), before determining whether a spouse has rebutted the presumption of equal distribution, a court must: (1) identify the portion of the value of the property that is fairly traceable to the spouse’s premarital assets; and (2) identify the portion that is fairly attributable to improvements or appreciation made after the acquisition of the property.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Morris

A court’s failure to comply with sentencing procedures “does not require reversal and remand for resentencing unless the error ‘prejudiced the defendant in request to a substantial right.’” State v. Dawson, 252 Or App 85, 90 (2012) (quoting ORS 131.035).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Doe v. Silverman

Under ORS 12.117 (2009), the amended statute of limitation applies “to all applicable causes of action, no matter when the cause of action arose, except in cases where a judgment was entered prior to the effective date of ORS 12.117 (2009).”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Nacey v. Board of Massage Therapists

Under OAR 137-003-0580, summary determination is appropriate only if the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, establishes that “there is ‘no genuine issue as to any material fact that is relevant to resolution of the legal issue as to which a decision is sought,’ and the party filing the motion[] ‘is entitled to a favorable ruling as a matter of law.’” Wolff v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 284 Or App 792, 800 (2017)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Bradford v. Premo

Under ORS 138.640(1), the “clear statement rule” requires judgments denying relief in post-conviction cases must: “(1) identify the claims for relief that the court considered and make separate rulings on each claim; (2) declare, with regard to each claim, whether the denial is based on a petitioner’s failure to utilize or follow available state procedures or a failure to establish the merits of the claim; and (3) make the legal bases for denial of relief apparent.” Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672, 685 (2010).

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

State v. Uroza-Zuniga

Under Article XI, section 2, of the Oregon Constitution, Oregon’s municipalities may not enact ordinances that “conflict” with state laws. City of Portland v. Jackson, 316 Or 143, 146 (1993).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Warren

Under Article VII (Amended), section 3, whether improper joinder of charges affected the verdict depends on whether joinder led to the admission of evidence that would not have been admissible but for the joinder . . . and, if so, whether that evidence affected the verdict on those charges.” State v. Poston, 277 Or App 137, 145 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Federal Home Loan Mortage Corp. v. Smith

Under ORS 86.797(1), “the participation of a ‘trustee’ is so fundamental to a ‘trustee’s sale’ that a sale cannot foreclose and terminate an individual’s property interest unless that sale is conducted by an actual trustee.” Wolf v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, 276 Or App 541 (2016) (emphasis added).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trusts and Estates

State v. Sigfridson 

To satisfy its burden under the inevitable discovery doctrine, the state was required to show by a preponderance of evidence "(1) that certain proper and predictable investigatory procedures would have been utilized in the instant case, and (2) that those procedures inevitably would have resulted in the discovery of the evidence in question.” State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 226 (1985).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Dept. of Human Services v. A. B.

Under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, “the term ‘foster care’ . . . describes arrangements of such duration as to be integral parts of the rearing process, as opposed to arrangements that are presumptively temporary or for limited purposes.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Nicita v. City of Oregon City

Under ORS 197.850(9)(a), when a petitioner asserts a substantial evidence issue, the role of the Court of Appeals is “to ensure that LUBA has followed the proper “substantial evidence” standard . . . not to assess whether the local government erred in making a finding, but to determine whether LUBA properly exercised its review authority.” Root v. Klamath County, 260 Or App 665, 670 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

State v. Carrillo

Under OAR 213-012-0020 2(b), a sentence for a single criminal episode is limited to 200 percent of the presumptive maximum term for the primary offense, except by departure. State v. Miller, 317 Or 297, 305 (1993).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Curzi v. Oregon State Lottery

Under ORS 30.275(2)(b), the time period by which a plaintiff must provide notice of his or her tort claims to defendants “begins to run when the plaintiff knows[,] or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known[,] facts which would make a reasonable person aware of a substantial possibility that each of the three elements (harm, causation, and tortious conduct) exists.” Uruo v. Clackamas County, 166 Or App 133, 143, (2000) (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Cook

Under ORS 163.195(1), to determine whether a defendant was aware that his actions were creating a substantial risk of serious physical injury, and that defendant consciously disregarded that risk, “[r]easonable inferences are permissible; speculation and guesswork are not.” State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460, 462 (2004).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Newton

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, to transform an encounter between an officer and a citizen into a "seizure," . . . “some exercise of coercive authority by the officer, such as retention of the identification after examination and a continuation of investigatory activities, is required.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Akins v. SAIF 286 Or App 70 (2017)

Under ORS 656.267, a workers’ compensation claimant is allowed to obtain acceptance of conditions that are not included in the scope of an insurer’s acceptance of the claimant’s claim, which must “[s]pecify what conditions are compensable,” ORS 656.262(6)(b)(A), that are “new” or “omitted” in regards to a notice of acceptance.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Courter v. City of Portland 280 Or App 39 (2017)

Under Article I, section 18, “whenever the government permanently physically occupies the property of a citizen, that physical occupation is a taking.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Huntsinger v. BNSF Railway Co.286 Or App 84 (2017)

Under 49 U.S.C. § 20701, “when a railroad carrier’s customary processes for preparing an outbound locomotive for departure are complete, and the locomotive will not undergo further comprehensive inspections, it is appropriate to regard the railroad carrier as having allowed the locomotive to be put ‘in use.’”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Edwards 286 Or App 99 (2017)

Under ORS 137.123(5)(b), “[a] single act produces only one set of harms, even if the act constitutes multiple offenses.” State v. Rettmann, 218 Or App 179, 186 (2008).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Williams v. CBS Corp., 286 Or App 1 (2017)

“[W]hen one corporation purchases all of the assets of another corporation, the purchasing corporation does not become liable for the debts and liabilities of the selling corporation,” unless one of four recognized exceptions are met. Tyree Oil, Inc. v. BOLI, 168 Or App 278, 282 (2000).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

D.M.G. Tepper

Under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, an SPO may not be based on expressive contacts—those that involve speech—unless the speech is a threat that “instills in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, is unequivocal, and is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts.” State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303, 977 P2d 379 (1999).

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

Lenn v. Lane County

Under Measure 49, a county must not apply “in a manner that has the effect of prohibiting the establishment of the dwelling, lot or parcel authorized under [Measure 49] unless the standards are reasonably necessary to avoid or abate a nuisance, to protect public health or safety or to carry out federal law.” Or Laws 2007, ch 424, § 11(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

M.D.D. v Alonso

Under ORS 107.718(1), “a petitioner seeking a restraining order must present evidence to establish that [within 180 days after then incident) the respondent’s conduct created an imminent danger of further abuse and that the respondent was a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner.” Kelley v. Stutzman, 281 Or App 388, 391-92, (2016).

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

Maney v. Angelozzi

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution “[e]xcessive intervention by a trial judge substantially diminishes the effectiveness of the adversary system and may deprive a litigant of [the] right to an impartially administered trial.” State v. Mains, 295 Or 640, 664, 669 P2d 1112 (1983).

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

State v. Litscher

In order to qualify for plain error review, an unpreserved argument must establish three elements: the argument must (1) identify an error “of law”; (2) the error must be “obvious and not reasonably in dispute; (3) the error must be “apparent on the record without requiring the court to choose among competing inferences.” Even when error is plain, an appellate court may still determine whether or not to exercise its discretion to review it. State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629-30 (2013).

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

Lunsford v. NCH Corp.

ORS 30.905(3)(b) (2008) does not violate the remedy clause of Article I, Section 10 or the jury clause of Article I, Section 17, because “[i]t is a permissible constitutional legislative function to balance the possibility of outlawing legitimate claims against the public need that at some definite time there be an end to potential litigation.” Sealey v. Hicks, 309 Or 387, 396, 788 P2d 435 (1990).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Brooks

Under ORS 137.030(1), "[T]he right conferred on a defendant . . . includes the right to have his sentence pronounced in open court.” State v. Jacobs, 200 Or App 665, 671, 117 P3d 290 (2005).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Wiborg

Under ORS 165.570(1), the state must prove that a defendant “understood that he was using the 9-1-1 system to report activities that he did not reasonably believe required prompt emergency service ‘in order to preserve life or property.’” In re Strickland, 339 Or 595, 601 (2005) (quoting ORS 165.570(1)).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Reeves v. Plett

Under ORCP 71 B(1), as a matter of law, for a party to prove it is entitled to relief from a trial court’s judgment of dismissal on the ground “excusable neglect” the party must demonstrate that it had “a reasonable excuse for failing—on account of neglect . . .—to appear or otherwise defend [its] interests.” Union Lumber Co. v. Miller, 360 Or 767, 778 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Towai

Under Article 1, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, an “inventory” (1) must be conducted pursuant to a policy that has been adopted by “politically accountable officials”; (2) the officer performing the inventory must not deviate from the “established policy or procedures of that particular law enforcement agency”; and (3) if those requirements are met, then a must “assure that such policies and procedures . . . do not violate constitutional guarantees. State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 8-10 (1984).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Craig

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, when officers have an initial lawful basis for a stop, but extend the stop past the point at which the initial lawful reason for the stop has dissipated, the extension “must be justified by at least reasonable suspicion of some other criminal activity.” State v. Sherman, 274 Or App 764, 773 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Robbins v. City of Medford

Under ORS 30.265(6)(c), a governmental actor is entitled to discretionary immunity for allegedly negligent conduct only if: (1) the conduct is the product of a decision; (2) the decision must be a policy decision; (3) the decision must have been made by a governmental decision-maker with authority to make that type of policy decision.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Kaste v. Land O'Lakes Purina Feed, LLC 

When a term in a contract is susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations, it is ambiguous, and it cannot be a basis on which to grant a directed verdict using one interpretation. 

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

State v. Silver

Under ORS 138.222(5)(b), failure to merge multiple counts into a single guilty verdict requires the reversal of a judgment of conviction which triggers an automatic remand for resentencing on all affirmed counts. State v. Skaggs, 275 Or App 557, 560-61, 364 P.3d 355 (2015), rev den, 359 Or 667 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Big River Construction, Inc. v. City of Tillamook

Under ORS 20.220(3)(a), “when an appeal is taken from a general judgment . . . to which an award of attorney fees or costs and disbursements relate, . . . if the appellate court reverses the general judgment, the award of attorney fees or costs and disbursements shall be deemed reversed."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Behrle v. Taylor

ORS 138.650(1) does not grant either party an additional 10 days after the 30-day period has expired to file notice of cross-appeal.

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

State v. Valdez

Under ORS 151.505(3) and ORS 161.665(4), a court may not order a defendant to pay court-appointed attorney fees unless the defendant “is or may be able” to pay them.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Dept. of Human Service v. A. W. I.

Under ORS 109.070(5)(f), a Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VAP) “shall” be set aside “if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the acknowledgment was signed because of fraud, duress or material mistake of fact . . . unless, giving consideration to the interests of the parties and the child, the court finds that setting aside the acknowledgment would be substantially inequitable.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Dickas

Under ORS 810.441(2), authorizes ODOT to contract with a state agency, to "operate photo radar within the highway work zone . . . located on a state highway."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Traffic Infractions

Norberg and Norberg

Under ORS 107.105(1)(d)(C), a trial court may consider the following factors to determine the amount and duration of a support award: (1) the duration of the marriage; (2) the ages of the parties; (3) the physical and emotional health of the parties; (4) the standard of living established during the marriage; (5) the parties’ relative incomes and earning capacities; (6) the parties’ training and employment skills, and work experience; (7) their financial resources and needs; and (8) the tax consequences of an award.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Dugan

Under ORS 161.067(3), merger of guilty verdicts is required for crimes that are (1) committed in a single criminal episode, (2) violate only one statutory provision, (3) involve only one victim, and (4) are not separated by sufficient pause to afford the defendant an opportunity to renounce his criminal intent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Davis

For the officer-safety exception to apply “(1) the officer’s actions must have occurred during a lawful encounter; (2) the officer must have had a reasonable suspicion that the individual posed an immediate threat of serious physical injury; and (3) the steps the officer took to protect the officer or others must have been reasonable.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Ha v. Board of Parole

Under ORS 144.343 (1987), the Board of Parole and Post-Conviction Supervision has the authority, after conducting a parole-revocation hearing and on finding that the parolee violated the terms of his or her release to require that a “parole violator serve the remaining balance of the sentence as provided by law.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

State v. Edwards

Under OEC 404(3), if a trial court determines that prior bad acts evidence is relevant to a nonpropensity purpose, “the court, on proper motion, must weigh the probative value of the evidence against its potential to unduly prejudice the defendant, per OEC 403, before admitting the evidence.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Eby v. Premo

Under the Sixth Amendment, “a petitioner claim[ing] that his [or her] trial lawyer’s deficient performance caused [them] to forgo a favorable plea must show that, but for counsel’s deficiency, there was a reasonable probability that (1) the petitioner would have pleaded guilty; (2) the plea would have been accepted by the trial court; and (3) the pleas would have resulted in a more favorable disposition of the case.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief
  • , Article I, Section 11, Oregon Constitution

State v. Anderson

Under OEC 403, a judge errs in ruling on a challenge to evidence if the judge (1) fails to exercise discretion, (2) refuses to exercise discretion or (3) fails to make a record which reflects an exercise of discretion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. G. A. K.

Under ORS 426.005(1)(f), evidence of past threats and overt attempts to carry them out can constitute clear and convincing evidence that a person is a danger to self or others, but evidence of vague threats without overt acts does not satisfy the evidence standard.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Landis v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.

Under ORS 656.245(1)(c)(D), “[t]he primary characteristics of prosthetics are that they take the place of a body part or aide in a natural function . . . [and] unlike a durable medical device, could not be rented are used by successive patients.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. D.J.

Under ORS 419.626(3)(a), a juvenile court specifically states “why” it ordered a youth's continued out-of-home placement if the findings permit an appellate court to determine, through meaningful review, that the disposition was “necessary.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Hensley

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, after a defendant has been charged with a crime and the right to counsel has attached, police are prohibited from questioning that defendant about the charged crime without first notifying his or her lawyer.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Porter v. Board of Parole

Under ORS 144.125 (1991), “if a release date was scheduled and elapsed without the board first having found a valid reason to postpone release, but the inmate was erroneously not released, later events cannot furnish a basis for postponing release; the inmate is entitled to immediate release.”

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

State v. Markwell

An object of any shape or size that returns to its original shape after being distorted which (1) “flies open,” and (2) provides resistance when it is being closed can be considered by a reasonable trier of fact to be considered to move into position by force of a spring.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Beaverton Sch. Dist. 48J v. Ward

Under ORS 20.075, a trial court weighing the relevant statutory factors, has “substantial discretion" in determining attorney fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Smith & Smith Excavation, Inc., et al.

Under ORS 279A.030, federal funding, standing alone, does not make a project a “public building or public work of the Federal Government” within the meaning of the federal Miller Act, 40 USC § 3131(b).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

DiNicola v. State of Oregon

For purposes of issue preclusion, where the issue in both proceedings requires the application a particular legal standard to the same set of facts, the issue is identical when the legal standard in both proceedings is the same or similar.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Finney-Chokey v. Chokey

If a particular factual finding was not necessary to the trial court’s determination, and the trial court did not expressly make the finding on the record, an appellate court will not presume that the finding was made.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. L. P. L. O.

Under ORS 419B.100, the court’s exclusive jurisdiction attaches as soon as any case involving a person under 18 years old is initiated and continues until the case is disposed of as provided by statute. In determining whether the court has jurisdiction, the court's objective is to “determine whether the child needs the court’s protection, not to determine the nature or extent of that protection.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Webster

An issue of law reasonably in dispute is not an apparent error that satisfies the second prong of the test for "plain error" stated in State v. Brown, 310 Or 347 (1990) (to qualify as “plain error,” an asserted error must be (1) one of law; (2) it must be apparent, i.e., the point must be obvious, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) it must appear on the face of the record).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Davilla

In determining whether a factor constitutes a substantial and compelling departure, aggravating factors that were not included in the state's notice to defendant and that were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury may not be used by the sentencing court as a substantial and compelling reason to impose an upward departure sentence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dept. of Human Services v. T.L.

When a parent seeks to dismiss juvenile court jurisdiction at a time when the permanency plan is something other than reunification, the proponent or proponents of ongoing jurisdiction may invoke a presumption, based on the plan, that the jurisdictional bases continues to make it unsafe for the child to return home. If the presumption is invoked, a parent seeking dismissal bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the jurisdictional bases no longer pose a current threat of serious loss or harm to the child that is reasonably likely to be realized.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Grubb

Under OEC 403, evidence may be admitted if it is relevant to an issue raised on direct examination, even if it requires inquiring into a different set of facts from those that were elicited on direct examination.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Sharinghousen

Under Oregon Uniform Criminal Jury Instruction (UCrJI) 1029, inconsistencies between a witness's trial testimony and the trial testimony of another witness can support the giving of a witness-false-in-part instruction if the jury could find from those inconsistencies that the witness willfully testified falsely.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Dept. of Human Serv. v. S.M.S

Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), the requirements for a court to take jurisdiction of a child are satisfied if, under the totality of the circumstances at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, there is a reasonable likelihood of harm to the welfare of the child or another person.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Cruz v. Multnomah County., et al.

Under ORS 30.265(6)(f), public actors are immune from liability, when acting without bad faith or malice, and relying on their plausible interpretation of laws that turn out to be unconstitutional, invalid, or inapplicable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Huddleston

Under ORS 161.485(2), in order for convictions for inchoate offenses to merge, a defendant’s actions must constitute a single course of conduct aimed at the commission of the same crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Newmann

Under ORAP 5.45(1), the Court of Appeals may, at its discretion, review an unpreserved assignment of error as “an error of law apparent on the record” if: (1) the error is one of law; (2) the error is “apparent,” and (3) the error appears “on the face of the record.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Hernandez-Camacho

Under ORS 161.665(4), a court may not sentence a defendant to pay attorney fees unless the defendant is or may be able to pay them.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

De Los-Santos v. Si Pac Enterprises, Inc.

Under ORS 656.267, in order to prevail on a new or omitted condition claim, the claimant must prove that the new or omitted condition not only exists, but also qualifies as a condition, rather than a mere symptom.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Oregon Connections Academy v. Scio. Sch. Dist. 95C

Under ORS 338.065(5)(e), an “expiring charter shall remain in effect until a new charter is negotiated” only where necessary to avoid an interruption in service.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Chevalier Advertising, Inc. v. Ballista Tactical Systems, Inc.

Summary judgment is only appropriate where no genuine issues of material fact exists; a material fact is one that might affect the outcome of a case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Casey v. City of Portland

If an employer expressly reserves an employee's right to maintain a second action or proceeding at the time of its first denial of a worker’s compensation claim, the initial denial has no preclusive effect on an employee’s subsequent claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Jewett v. Sterling Furniture Co.

Under ORS 20.075, an attorney's characterizations of the record are not evidence to be considered when determining the proper award of attorney’s fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Kauppi

Under Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 133.565, an otherwise adequately descriptive warrant is not rendered in violation of the particularity requirement because it contains a clerical error if: (1) the executing officer had personal knowledge of that error, and (2) made the "reasonable effort" of drawing upon that knowledge to, in effect, correct the clerical error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Rosenstiel

ORS 161.067 requires merger of multiple guilty verdicts into a single conviction when the defendant violates "only one statutory provision" and when the conduct arises "from the same conduct or criminal episode."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing