Erin Milos

Oregon Supreme Court (24 summaries)

Habitat for Humanity v. Dept. of Rev.

Under ORS 307.130(2)(a), whether property is “actually and exclusively occupied or used” in the taxpayer’s charitable work depends on the nature of the taxpayer’s work and the relationship between the work and the property.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Bank of America, N.A. v. Payne

Without a validly appointed trustee, there is no “trustee” for purposes of the OTDA, and therefore can be no valid trustee’s sale with the power to foreclose another person’s property interests.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Conroy v. Rosenblum

The Attorney General must revise and re-file Initiative Petition 62 because it was vague, overbroad, and confusing in its caption, and inconsistent between its caption and its result statements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

State v. Waterhouse

To convict a defendant of third degree theft under ORS 1664.043, the State need only show the property stolen had some value and is not required to prove the exact value of the property.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Kendoll v. Rosenblum

A ballot title must conform to the requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(a)-(d); if it fails to conform, it may be referred for modification.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

Rowlett v. Fagan

Lawyers cannot be held to have breached a duty of care in a malpractice action by failing to raise claims that are colorable, but not viable, because in order to prove malpractice a client must show he had, “a valid cause of action or defense, which, had it not been for the attorney’s alleged negligence, would have brought about a judgment favorable to the client in the original action.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Shell v. Schollander Companies, Inc.

The statute of repose in ORS 12.135(1) applies to contracts to construct, alter, or repair an improvement to real property where a “contractee” accepts the property as “substantially complete,” while the statute of repose in ORS 12.115(1) applies generally to claims for negligence that do not derive from a contract to construct, alter, or repair an improvement to land.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Kirschner

The American Rule would not apply to bar the victim’s recovery of restitution for wages lost (ORS 137.106) while the victim appeared to testify as long as the State establishes that the costs “resulted from” Defendant’s criminal activity and were reasonably foreseeable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

State v. Ramos

“Economic damages” awarded as restitution under ORS 137.106 must be the result of reasonably foreseeable risks of harm, and victim’s attorney fees and litigation costs may constitution “economic damages” under ORS 137.106.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

State v. Simonov

The consent element of ORS 164.135(1) is a conduct element, as opposed to a circumstance element, which requires a minimum culpable mental state of knowing, meaning the State must prove the defendant knew that the owner of the vehicle he used, rode in, or otherwise exercised control over did not give consent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

ODOT v. Alderwoods

When governmental action interferes with an abutting landowner's right of access for the purpose of ensuring the safe use of a public road, and the abutting landowner retains reasonable access to its property, no compensable taking of the property owner's right of access occurs.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Bonilla

A consent search is justified only if someone who had actual authority gave consent. Fourth Amendment principles of apparent authority are inapplicable because the Fourth Amendment is based on different principles than the underlying principles of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Guzek

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, a defendant may not be entitled to a full evidentiary hearing with live testimony to determine use of appropriate restraints during a penalty-phase trial, where the record reflects no disputed facts and the trial court properly considered, on the record, the risk of danger, disruption or escape and the relative prejudice of types of restraints.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

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

Stubblefield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine was wrongly decided when it held a covenant not to execute in exchange for an assignment of rights, by itself, constitutes a release that extinguishes further liability of the insured, and therefore also extinguishes the rights of the insurer.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

State ex rel Walraven v. Dept. of Corrections

ORS 138.160 does not effect a stay on the Department of Corrections’ obligation to prepare and submit a proposed release plan where the Department of Corrections appeals a preliminary order of conditional release under ORS 420A.203.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Hickman

Under Article I, sections 2 and 3, of the Oregon Constitution, the State is not required to prove that a defendant acted with a knowing mental state rather than a lower mental state required by statute where a defendant claims his criminal acts were motivated by free exercise of religion principles. (Overturns Meltebeke v. BOLI).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Hickman

Under Article I, sections 2 and 3, of the Oregon Constitution, the State is not required to prove that a defendant acted with knowledge rather than a lesser culpable mental state required by statute where a defendant claims his criminal acts were motivated by free exercise of religion principles. (Overturns Meltebeke v. BOLI).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Ashkins

Under Article I, section 11, a defendant may ask for a jury concurrence instruction where an indictment charges a single violation of a crime but the evidence permits the jury to find multiple, separate occurrences of that crime; alternative to an instruction, the state may limit the jury’s consideration to a single occurrence. The rule may not apply where evidence is nonspecific and undifferentiated to one of multiple occurrences.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Jimenez

A routine weapons inquiry is unrelated to a traffic stop and violates Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution where the officer has no reasonable, circumstance-specific suspicion of a safety concern.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Eclectic Investment, LLC v. Patterson

The Supreme Court may allow reconsideration of a decision where it based its conclusion on an analysis not identified by the parties to the suit, but where that analysis produces the same result it will adhere to its opinion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc.

Under ORS 654.086(2), “could not . . . know” is an inexact term given its ordinary meaning of what an employer is capable of knowing under the circumstances, and the interpretation of “reasonable diligence” is delegated to the agency to be determined considering the circumstances of each case and within the range discretion allowed by statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. McAnulty

Statements improperly obtained and used during sentencing were in violation of Defendant’s rights, but were harmless where statements subsequently obtained and admitted were more serious. The jury would have found the improperly admitted statements duplicative or unhelpful.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Triangle Holdings, II, LLC v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company

Under ORS 742.061(1), an insured has not obtained “recovery” against an insurer where the insured accepted payment by the insurer and summary judgment was granted. “Recovery” is obtained by an insured only when a money judgment is granted against the insurer.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

PIH Beaverton, LLC v. Super One, Inc.

Posting and filing a completion notice pursuant to ORS 87.045 does not necessarily establish that the owner has accepted construction of the improvement as complete for occupation as required by ORS 12.135, but will be considered along with evidence that must demonstrate written consent or assent to construction as sufficiently complete for its intended use or occupancy; ORS 12.135 will only be satisfied by establishing the date on which the construction was fully complete, not the date on which it was sufficiently complete for its intended use or occupancy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (145 summaries)

State v. Donathan

The term “convicted” in ORS 813.010(5) means a finding of guilt by plea or verdict for DUII, even where judgment on the finding was suspended.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Marlow v. City of Sisters

A landowner’s consent to trespass based on mutual mistake is valid, but a landowner’s consent to trespass based on mistake known by the trespasser or on the misrepresentation of the trespasser is invalid.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

C.R. v. Gannon

A hearing that is held “pursuant to” ORS 107.718(10) is a hearing where parties have an opportunity to be heard on the issues of law or fact that are placed before the court, which are limited to the legal or factual issues related to the relief available to a petitioner in ORS 107.718(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Spilling v. Taylor

Where an inmate filed a Standard Tort Claim Form that included handwritten allegations that his property was taken by a correctional officer, a specific list of the items, and the items’ dollar values, it was error for the trial court to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted because those facts are sufficient to state a claim for conversion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Williamson

Under ORS 161.155(2), a person is criminally liable for the conduct of another person constituting a crime if, among other things, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, the person aids or abets another person in planning or committing a crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Bowen

Under ORS 165.800(1), a “transfer” means the selling or giving possession or control of another person’s personal identification to a third person for fraudulent or deceptive purposes, and is distinct from appropriation of another’s credit card for one’s own use.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Hinman v. Silver Star Group, LLC

Under ORS 36.600 to 36.740, a trial court has the power to determine both whether claims fall under an arbitration clause and whether the contract as a whole is unconscionable, but must engage in factfinding to make these determinations rather than relying solely on the allegations of the parties.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution

State v. James

A witness may not testify about the credibility of another witness, but this rule does not bar a witness from testifying that he has agreed with the State to testify truthfully in a plea or other cooperation agreement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Everett v. Premo

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner who seeks to invalidate a conviction based on counsel’s performance at trial must prove (1) the lawyer failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and (2) the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result. Prejudice occurs where the lawyer’s deficient performance “could have tended to affect the outcome of the case.”

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

Farmers Ins. Co. v. Aranda

Under OAR 438-006-0036, a motion made to dismiss a claim during closing arguments, rather than filed as a response to the claim or brought up during the hearing, is not a timely response.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Lopez-Silva

Under State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714 (2014), it is plain error for a court to order a defendant to pay court-ordered attorney fees without an assessment of the defendant's ability to pay.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

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

Under ORS 45.400(3)(b), testimony may not be given via telephone if the issues the party will testify about are so determinative of the outcome that face-to-face cross-examination is necessary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Spynu

When applying ORS 137.717, acts are considered to be part of the same criminal episode when they are so closely linked in time, place, and circumstance that a complete account of a charge cannot be related without relating the details of another charge.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc.

If a plaintiff's claims are covered under Article I, section 17 of the Oregon Constitution, ORS 31.710(1) cannot reduce the amount of damages that a jury determines is proper.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Horton v. OHSU

Where a doctor is negligent during surgery on a child and the child needs an emergency organ transplant, a parent’s voluntary choice to donate an organ may be a reasonably foreseeable result and the parent may fall within the class of plaintiffs at risk because of the close bond between family members.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Couch

A defendant filing a motion seeking DNA testing and the appointment of counsel under ORS 138.690 (2011) and 138.694 (2011) must include an affidavit containing a statement that he is innocent, identifying the specific evidence to be tested, and identifying a theory of defense that DNA testing would support, and additionally make a prima facie showing the testing would establish actual innocence.

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

Johnson v. Premo

Under ORS 138.530(1)(a) and Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner in a post-conviction relief matter must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her attorney failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and consequently the petitioner suffered prejudice.

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

Himebaugh v. Taylor

Under ORS 138.640(1) and Datt v. Hill, a post-conviction judgment to deny relief must (1) identify the claims for relief the court considered and make separate rulings on each claim; (2) declare for each claim whether the denial is based on 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.

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

Johnson and Johnson

Under ORS 107.105(1)(d)(A) , transitional spousal support is typically awarded for education or training to prepare the supported spouse to enter the job market; because this type of support is awarded for a specific purpose, its duration must correspond to the timeframe of that specific purpose.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. R-Robinson

Under OAR 213-004-0011(1), an out-of-state adult conviction may only be used to classify an offender’s criminal history where the elements of the offense would have constituted a felony or Class A misdemeanor under Oregon law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Hancock v. Pioneer Asphalt, Inc.

Issue preclusion may not be applied to dismiss a claim where, in the prior action, the claim was dismissed without prejudice without being actually litigated and essential to a final decision on the merits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Brooke

Simply referencing an attorney does not necessarily constitute an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, but a defendant’s expression of his clear desire to speak with an attorney is an unequivocal invocation of that right.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Harvey v. Davis

When mailing notice of default under a land sale contract, notice via mail “shall conclusively be presumed to be correct, and the notice adequate,” unless the recipient of the notice notifies the sender by registered or certified mail that he has a claim to a longer period of time in which to cure the default, where a land sale contract contains a notice provision that provides notice of default by mail shall take effect three days after mailing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Law v. Zemp

A trial court may make additional orders in aid of enforcement of a charging order under ORS 67.205 (involving limited partnerships), but may not make additional orders to enforce a charging order under ORS 70.295 (involving LLCs).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

State v. Williams

During a criminal trial, an audiotape of a defendant’s interrogation that contains statements by an officer that he can “read body language” and he thinks the defendant is lying may not be improper vouching testimony, particularly where the judge instructs the jury to disregard the statements when assessing the defendant’s credibility.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Broome

Under ORAP 5.45(1), the Court of Appeals may exercise its discretion to reverse a judgment ordering a defendant to pay attorney fees where the record is silent as to his ability to pay as plain error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Rios

Under ORS 151.505(3) and ORS 161.665(4), the Court of Appeals may use its discretion to reverse a judgment ordering a defendant to pay court-appointed attorney fees where the trial court failed to determine the defendant’s ability to pay.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Lahn v. Vaisbort

Where a dispute over a transaction involves whether the transaction was a security or a commercial loan between private parties, the four-factor test outlined in Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 US 56, 63-64 (1990), must weigh in favor of a security in order for the transaction to be governed by Oregon Securities Law under ORS chapter 59. The four-factor test involves analyzing: (1) the motivation for entering the transaction, (2) the plan of distribution, (3) the reasonable expectations of the investing public, and (4) whether there are any risk-reducing factors that would make application of the securities laws unnecessary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

State v. Shupe

Evidence of a license to possess or dispense marijuana in another state may be excluded under OEC 401 and OEC 403 because the evidence is irrelevant and may be confusing to a determination of a defendant’s violation of Oregon laws regarding possession and distribution of marijuana.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Wolf v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC

A trustee’s sale conducted pursuant to former ORS 86.770(1) (2011) is invalid where the trustee conducting the sale is not a validly appointed trustee as defined in former ORS 86.705(8) (2011). An invalid trustee’s sale due to lack of a validly appointed trustee cannot foreclose a person’s property interests even where the person received actual notice and did not attempt to delay or stop the sale.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. Jacobs

For purposes of charging a defendant with tampering with physical evidence under ORS 162.295, a defendant has knowledge that an official proceeding is about to be instituted against him at the time he is placed under arrest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Bank of America, NA v. Wilson

Under former ORS 86.755(6)(b), an interest “voluntarily created” includes any property interest that a grantor voluntarily creates after granting the deed of trust, including an ownership interest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Landlord Tenant

State v. Dewhitt

Under ORS 132.560(1)(b)(C), charges may be joined for trial where they are connected together because the offenses occurred in the same time and space, the investigation renders evidence for multiple charges, and material witnesses substantially overlap.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Wong v. Gittings

Under ORS 105.137(7), in an FED action, an automatic default judgment of restitution does not result when a defendant files a late answer, where the answer is filed before the plaintiff requests a default or the court renders judgment in the case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Landlord Tenant

Spearman v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co.

Under ORS 742.061(3), disputes over individual categories of damages or over some, but not all, alleged injuries are not precluded because these disputes fall under the issue of damages due to plaintiff.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

State v. Guzman

Where a victim does not testify, evidence is sufficient to establish the victim suffered “substantial pain” required by ORS 163.160(1)(a) through inferences made from witness testimony, victim statements to a 9-1-1 dispatcher and photographs of the victim’s injuries.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Gozzi v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd.

Under Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, where a party does not challenge a delegation provision specifically, the challenge to the delegation provision must be determined by the arbitrator if the delegation provision requires it.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

Pollard v. Persson

Under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, relief is available for claims actually alleged in a petition or amended petition; claims not raised in the petition or amended petition are waived unless the petitioner establishes that the claims could not reasonably have been asserted at that time.

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

Carleton and Carleton

Under OAR 137-050-0715(1), (2) and (4)(f), accelerated depreciation may be excluded from calculation of a party's income when determining support; when neither party presents evidence regarding what portion of depreciation expenses are accelerated, and the court points this out with opportunity to clarify, the court may properly exclude the entire amount if the support formula is properly applied.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Dept. of Human Services v. A. H.

Where the cumulative negative effects of a jurisdictional order entered on legally insufficient evidence are substantial enough, a motion to dismiss for mootness may be denied.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. B. K. F.

When a parent successfully challenges a portion of a jurisdictional judgment over a child, the unchallenged portion may remain valid to uphold jurisdiction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Greenwood Products, Inc. v. Greenwood Forest Products, Inc.

On Defendants Greenwood Forest Products, Inc. appeal, its seventh assignment of error regarding expert expenses was remanded to the court for an award of reasonable expert expenses.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Marquez v. Premo

A denial of post-conviction relief 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 (which can be established through oral findings).

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

State v. Fetzer

When a party fails to object to testimony at trial, the argument may not be preserved on appeal, even where the party successfully moved to exclude the substantive evidence upon which the testimony is based.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Inman

In general, a detective's testimony that witness statements remained consistent between interviews is not improper vouching testimony, where the detective is not speculating on the truthfulness of the witness statements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Jones

Evidence of a nonconsensual warrantless search of a defendant's pocket and the subsequent search of a cigarette pack found in the pocket that did not fall under an exception to Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution should have been suppressed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Tomlinson v. Metropolitan Pediatrics, LLC

Parents of a child medical care providers failed to diagnose with a genetic condition may have a legally cognizable claim of negligence against the providers, where the parents conceived another child with the same genetic condition as the first, because providers failed to give due care to the parents' legally protected interest in making an informed reproductive decision.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Perryman

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw is valid under the exigent circumstances exception where the officer had probable cause to believe the defendant was intoxicated, a warrant could not have been obtained significantly faster than the process used under the circumstances, and, under the U.S. Constitution, the procedures used to extract the sample were reasonable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Oliver

Under OEC 404(4) as construed by State v. Williams, 357 Or 1 (2015), evidence of other acts by a defendant may be admissible if the evidence is relevant under OEC 401 and its probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice as described in OEC 403.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Hightower

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, and State v. Blanchard, a defendant’s right to waive counsel may be limited where the defendant is unclear or equivocal or if granting the request to waive counsel will be disruptive to the orderly conduct of trial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Amsbary

Where the State failed to prove an officer subjectively believed the defendant’s small black pouch was or contained a dangerous or deadly weapon, and that belief was objectively reasonable, the seizure of the evidence did not meet the officer safety exception to the warrant requirement of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and must be suppressed absent rebuttal of the presumption that the evidence was tainted by the violation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. King

Under ORS 138.222(5)(a), where a trial court has amended a judgment adding a restitution award after the 90-day period allowed, the proper disposition of the case on appeal is not reversal but remand for resentencing if the trial court expressed a desire to have the defendant compensate the victim and the court could impose a compensatory fine that would be paid to the victim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Roy

A trial court may err when it fails to give a jury instruction informing the jury that at least 10 jurors must concur as to the specific crime or crimes the defendant intended to commit where a party does not request the instruction; however, on appeal, the Court may decline to consider and correct the alleged error where the defendant did not object to the instruction and the jury verdict met the concurrence requirement anyway.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Davenport

A typographical error did not affect the Court’s reasoning or disposition; therefore, reconsideration was allowed to correct the error and the opinion was adhered to as modified.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Jesse

Under OEC 702, where a defendant offers expert testimony that explains a connection between the defendant’s behavior and the expert’s opinion of the defendant’s mental health issues, the evidence could help the jury assess the defendant’s behavior and should not be excluded on the basis of a lack of nexus.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Satterfield

A defendant having “good reason to know” is insufficient to convict the defendant of theft by receiving, ORS 164.095(1), which, as interpreted by State v. Korelis, requires actual knowledge or belief that property was stolen.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Romero

Under ORS 138.692 and State v. Johnson, when making a motion for DNA testing after conviction, a defendant must (1) include an affidavit asserting his innocence, identifying the evidence to be tested and putting forth a theory of defense that the DNA testing would support, and (2) make a prima facie showing of actual innocence that is more than a mere assertion of innocence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. D.B.L.

An order of civil commitment under ORS 426.130 must be supported by legally sufficient evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. E.K.I.

An order committing a person for not more than 180 days under ORS 426.130 must be supported by legally sufficient evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Dept. of Human Services v. E. J. E.

Parental rights may be terminated based on unfitness of a parent due to conduct or condition seriously detrimental to the child under ORS 419B.504 where it is in the best interests of the child under ORS 419B.500.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Walker

Under ORS 151.505 and ORS 161.665, a defendant cannot be ordered to pay court-appointed attorney fees unless the court makes a determination that the defendant is or may be able to pay the fees, and includes evidence on the record as to that determination.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Hardy v. Land Board

Under ORS 274.400 to 274.412 and OAR ch. 141, div. 121, the State may claim ownership of navigable waterways by demonstrating with substantial evidence the use or susceptibility to use of the waterway, or segment thereof, as a highway of commerce at the time of statehood.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

J.A.W. v. Employment Department

The unemployment insurance extended benefit statutes, ORS 657.321 – 657.329, do not specify a time limitation for filing for extended benefits, and applying the time limitation specified for filing for regular benefits could lead to an inconsistent result where an applicant was unable to file for or ineligible to receive the extended benefits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. D.Z.

When a trial court's written order is inconsistent with its oral findings, it may be vacated and remanded for entry of a correct written order, where the written form is highly susceptible to clerical error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State ex rel O'Connor v. Helm / Clackamas County

Where a party files a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel a final order, ORS 34.740 does not require a court grant a motion to amend that effectively converts the petition for a writ of mandamus into a declaratory judgment action.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Rhodes v. U.S. West Coast Taekwondo Assn., Inc.

In a negligence action, a former employer may be liable for harm caused by negligent training and supervision of employees and unsafe operating policies, where by express agreement employees were to be hired by the new employer taking over operations.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Lucht v. Mulino Hangar Cafe & Roadhouse, LLC

A trial court may not sua sponte dismiss a case where it had set a deadline for resolution but subsequently granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, removing the plaintiff's ability to comply with the deadline.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Scheffel v. Oregon Beta Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity

A fraternity and its local chapter may have a duty to protect social guests against reasonably foreseeable intentional acts of a third party, where the negligence of the local chapter placed a person at an unreasonable risk of intentional criminal conduct and the fraternity may have undertaken supervision and control of the local chapter.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Althof

Under OEC 702, a detective will qualify as an expert to give testimony at trial where the detective has extensive background, knowledge and experience in the area of delayed reporting of sexual abuse even though he holds no advanced degree in that area.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Brown

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment, just because a defendant temporarily sets down a piece of property does not mean it is abandoned for purposes of conducting a warrantless search of that property.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Eastern Oregon Mining Association v. DEQ

Under ORS 14.175, when a permit issued by an Oregon agency expires, and a new permit is issued that is the same as the expired permit, a challenge to the expired permit may be dismissed as moot, where the issues are not likely to evade judicial review in a future challenge to the new permit.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Ornduff v. Hobbs

An attorney fee statement described in ORCP 68 qualifies as a “motion” or “pleading” under ORCP 15 D, and a court may grant a party permission to file the fee statement after the expiration of the ORCP 68 C(4)(a) filing period.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Benning

A violation of a defendant’s rights under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution requires an analysis using the Unger factors including temporal proximity; mitigating circumstances; intervening circumstances (without using the Dempster/Snyder rule, which is no longer good law); purpose and flagrancy of the unlawful police conduct; and the nature, extent, and severity of the constitutional violation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Mitchell

Under the Fourth Amendment, whether the causal connection between unlawful seizure of a defendant and the subsequent discovery of evidence is sufficiently attenuated by the intervening discovery of an outstanding warrant so as to purge the taint of the illegality depends on the temporal proximity between the unlawful police conduct and the discovery of the evidence, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the unlawful police conduct.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Harris

Under ORS 138.697(1), a circuit court order granting DNA testing is not “limited” by a condition that a defendant may not collaterally attack his or her convictions if no exculpatory evidence is found.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Radtke

Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, whether a person has been seized depends on whether a reasonable person would believe an officer intentionally and significantly restricted, interfered with, or otherwise deprived the person of his or her liberty or freedom of movement, which is a fact-specific inquiry dependent on examination of the totality of the circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Dept. of Human Services v. M.P.P.

Termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence that it is warranted by both the conduct of the parent and the best interests of the child.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Durette v. Virgil

Under OEC 401, if experts in a field typically rely on studying photographs and particular statistical data, then that methodology of analysis will be sufficient to avoid excluding the testimony. An expert may be qualified to testify to scientific evidence under OEC 702, even where that expert is unlicensed by the applicable regulatory body.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Southcentral Association of Neighbors v. City of Salem

Adjacent parcels under common ownership are not necessarily one development, and therefore one "lot," simply because they are owned by the same entity for the purposes of applying Salem Revised Code 130.270.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Dept. of Human Services v. B. M. C.

In a dependency proceeding, where DHS is dismissed as a party through a guardianship judgment, DHS may not move to set aside that agreement because they lack standing to do so.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Dept. of Human Services v. K. L.

ORS 419B.823 and 419B.824 are modeled after ORCP 7 D, and require that parties to a dependency proceeding receive notice reasonably calculated under the factual circumstances to apprise them of the action and afford the opportunity to present objections.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Johnson & Lechman-Su, PC v. Sternberg

Issue preclusion may not be used against a party in a current proceeding where the issue was not fully litigated due to the prior case being reversed and remanded on appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Rivas v. Board of Parole

A constitutionally adequate parole-exit interview conducted pursuant to ORS 144.125(3) does not include the right to call witnesses or cross-examine people who provided information to the board to be constitutionally adequate.

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

Sather v. SAIF

The Workers' Compensation Board must determine whether an otherwise compensable injury, not the accepted conditions, has ceased to be the major contributing cause of the worker's disability or need for treatment for an accepted combined condition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. S.A.N.

Under ORS 426.005(1)(e), where the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a person is dangerous to others due to a mental disorder, a judgment of involuntary commitment must be reversed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Abraham v. Board of Parole

Under ORS 144.335(1), when a person aggrieved by a board order fails to timely seek judicial review of the order, and subsequently seeks reconsideration, any denial of review is not a final order for the purpose of judicial review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Lewis v. Board of Parole

Under ORS 144.335(1), an agency's denial of a petition for reconsideration of a final order is not itself a final order for purposes of judicial review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Burt

Where a trial court sentences a defendant to a certain number of months in prison and a certain number of months of post-prison supervision, but gives credit for "time actually served," that sentence is unlawfully indeterminate for failure to state the length of the incarceration and the post-prison supervision.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Garcia

A criminal defendant may not be ordered to pay court-appointed attorney fees absent a determination that the defendant has the ability to pay them.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Miller v. Shenk

Under 28.110, all necessary parties must be joined to an action both to protect interested parties and the certainty of the judgment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Fossen v. Clackamas County

When a plaintiff brings claims of false arrest and false imprisonment, the false imprisonment claim will not be dismissed along with the false arrest claim where the false imprisonment claim arises after a valid arrest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Moyer and Moyer

A life insurance obligation must be commensurate with the support award it secures, and so when the support award is reduced or eliminated the life insurance obligation must be appropriately adjusted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Bradford

When a defendant raises self-defense at a trial alleging assault and harassment, it is improper to give the jury a defense of premises instruction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Delta Property Co., LLC v. Lane County

Under ORS 197.829, the Land Use Appeals Board must give deference to a county’s plausible interpretation of its land use code, and must consider whether any exceptions may apply.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Haynes v. Board of Parole

ORS 183.400 authorizes only facial challenges to agency rules, and does not allow constitutional challenges in particular circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

K.M.V. v. Williams

Under ORS 30.866, issuance of a stalking protective order requires at least two contacts that cause both subjective and objective reasonable alarm or coercion that occur within two years of filing the petition for the order.

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

McKeachie v. Coursey

Under 138.640, a judgment granting or denying post-conviction relief must contain (1) identification of claims for relief the court considered and separate rulings on each claim; (2) declaration for each claim whether denial is based on petitioner's failure to utilize or follow available state procedures or failure to establish merits of his claim; and (3) apparent legal bases for denial of relief.

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

State v. Battles

A trial court may reinstate an award of attorney fees following remand from an appeal, where Defendant did not contest them in the original appeal and offered no evidence the original award of the fees was plain error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. M.S.P.

Under ORS 426.130, when the evidence is legally insufficient that a person is a danger to himself, he may not be committed as a person with mental illness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Velazquez-Valleo

A judgment ordering a defendant to pay attorney fees may be reversed on appeal where circumstances of the defendant's case render him or her unable to pay court-ordered attorney fees, even if the error was unpreserved below.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Sternberg v. Lechman-Su

A claim for professional negligence may not be dismissed as time-barred where a question of fact remains regarding whether the claim accrued within the time allowed under the statute of limitations.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Munoz-Juarez

Under ORS 167.067(1) and (2), where a defendant violates multiple statutory provisions or violates one statutory provision but involves multiple victims, there are separately punishable offenses.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

English v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.

Under ORS 656.005(7)(a)(A), the compensability of a consequential condition depends on its relationship to the compensable injury, which must be its major contributing cause, and not on the “accepted conditions” from the original injury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Nordbye v. BRCP/GM Ellington

In an action for declaratory relief for an owner's violation of restrictions in a declaration resulting from participation in the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, a plaintiff's claim becomes moot where the plaintiff is no longer a qualified low-income tenant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Bernard v. S.B., Inc.

Under ORS 653.295(1)(a)(A), a noncompetition agreement that is not presented to an employee at least two weeks prior to the start of employment is voidable, and may be enforced by a court unless a party takes steps to void the agreement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Murphy v. Oregon Medical Board

Petitioner was not given adequate notice of the allegations against him when the complaint failed to specify which specific part of the statute the board alleged he violated. Petitioner was prejudiced when the board based its final order on two theories not argued at the contested case hearing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. G. A. K.

Evidence was insufficient to support involuntary commitment where the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that appellant was unable to provide for her basic needs due to a mental disorder.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Hinchman v. UC Market, LLC

Where a party’s theory is susceptible to proof through expert opinion evidence based on appropriate facts, a party’s offer of an ORCP 47 E affidavit is sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact to defeat summary judgment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Turner v. Dept. of Transportation

Under the Oregon Tort Claims Act, the two-year statute of limitations may not begin to run until a plaintiff reasonably knows both that the governmental conduct caused harm and that the conduct was negligent or intentionally harmful. Under ORS 30.265(6)(c), governmental immunity applies only where a body or person that has responsibility or authority to exercise judgment over a public policy decision actually demonstrates that it took the action necessary to effectuate the decision, not merely weighs the costs and benefits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Hunt

Under ORS 163.670(1), “permits” means “allows” or “makes possible” and does not require an authority to forbid. True vouching testimony supplants the jury’s assessment of credibility, requiring the court to sua sponte strike the testimony.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

De Zafra v. Farmers Insurance Company

Under ORS 742.504, an insurer must “pay all sums that the insured . . . is legally entitled to recover . . . from the owner or operator of an uninsured vehicle because of bodily injury sustained by the insured caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of an uninsured vehicle,” which does not restrict a claimant to coverage for injury caused only directly by the use of a motor vehicle.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Becker v. Hoodoo Ski Bowl Developers, Inc.

Release of liability provisions may render contracts unconscionable where the factors, outlined in Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., (favoring enforcement of the release) are outweighed by relevant countervailing considerations.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

State v. Rascon

ORS 136.420 and OEC 403 do not preclude admission of videotaped out-of-court statements or testimony where the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination, satisfying the requirements of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Hodges

Under ORS 165.800(1), the state must prove Defendant obtained, transferred, created, uttered or converted to his own use the personal identification of another person with the intent to deceive or defraud, and may use circumstantial evidence and reasonable inference to do so.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Hiner

When proving a sex offender failed to report, under former ORS 181.599(1)(d), the state must prove that a sex offender both left a previous residence and completed a move into a new residence while failing to comply with reporting requirements. The 2009 amendment to this statute (currently numbered ORS 181.812(1)(d)) requires the state to prove only that the sex offender moved from a previous residence and failed to comply with reporting requirements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

WSB Investment, LLC v. Pronghorn Development Company, LLC

Under ORS 65.369(1), gross negligence or intentional misconduct must be shown to hold a defendant nonprofit director liable for any breach of fiduciary duty under ORS 65.357(1). Summary judgment may be avoided in cases where breach of the statutory duty of loyalty is shown by a violation of duties contained in the declaration and bylaws of a homeowners association.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

Steel Capital Steel, LLC v. Williams

Under ORCP 26 A, a court must allow a reasonable time for the substitution of a real party in interest once the objection has been raised. The denial of an ORCP 71 B motion may not be considered on appeal unless a new or amended notice of appeal is filed, where a party received a general judgment, filed an ORCP 71 B motion for relief, filed a notice of appeal of the general judgment, and the ORCP 71 B motion was denied.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Soto

Under ORS 138.050(1), a Defendant may not appeal an imposition of fines and fees for DUII within the statutorily allowable amount where the trial court misunderstood the law with respect to its discretion to reduce or waive some of the fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. J.M.M.

Mere presence during the planning and commission of a crime, or acquiescence alone, is insufficient to find a defendant guilty of aiding and abetting a crime under ORS 161.155(2)(b).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State ex rel Stewart v. City of Salem

Under ORS 34.210(2), a trial court has discretion to award attorney fees to a “prevailing party” and may consider the entirety of the circumstances of the litigation when determining whether to award attorney fees on remand. Additionally, the trial court has discretion to determine the reasonableness of a party’s legal position under ORS 20.075(1)(b) and may consider the totality of the circumstances of litigation under ORS 20.075(1)(e) prior to awarding attorney fees on remand.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Camacho-Garcia

Under Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution, a defendant’s sentence of 75 months under ORS 137.700(2)(a)(P) for repeated, skin-to-skin sexual touching of his live-in girlfriend’s daughter under 14 years of age was not disproportionate, evaluated using the three Rodriguez/Buck factors to find the sentence would not shock the moral sense of a reasonable person.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Copeland Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Estate of Angeline Dillard

Where there is a dispute over the meaning of a mineral reservation contained in a deed, the term must be analyzed using the three Yogman factors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Liberty Oaks Homeowners Assn. v. Liberty Oaks, LLC

In a construction defect claim, the subcontractors were not liable as a third party respondent under ORCP 22 C, where the subcontractors’ liability was contingent upon the developers’ liability to the plaintiff.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

Sherwood Park Business Center, LLC v. Taggart

Under ORS 20.083 and 20.096, where a losing party is a stranger to an agreement that contains an attorney fee provision, the losing party shall not be subject to an assessment of fees against it even where it asserts a reciprocal right to fees. A party’s conduct that is merely an attempt to extract himself from litigation post-bankruptcy and that is not voluntary affirmative action shall not subject him to assessment of attorney fees against him for further litigation regarding the discharged debts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Enyeart

Defendant could not be convicted of interfering with a peace office as a lesser-included offense of eluding a police officer because the intentional mental state of ORS 162.247(1)(b) is not subsumed in the knowing mental state of ORS 811.540(1)(b)(A) and the charging instrument did not expressly allege that Defendant had intentionally refused to obey a lawful order.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Horizon Air Industries, Inc. v. Davis-Warren

Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), to establish a compensable injury a claimant must prove that an injury was suffered in the course of employment and that the injury resulted in death, disability, or was severe enough to require medical services, including medical services with only a diagnostic or prophylactic purpose.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Horizon Air Industries, Inc. v. Davis-Warren

Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), to establish a compensable injury a claimant must prove that an injury was suffered in the course of employment and that the injury resulted in death, disability, or was severe enough to require medical services, including medical services with only a diagnostic or prophylactic purpose.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Carle

Because the sender of a text message has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the digital copy of a text message delivered to a recipient’s cell phone, a “search” of the sender does not occur under Article I, section 9, or the Fourth Amendment, where police discovered a text message from Defendant on a recipient’s cell phone.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Norris v. R & T Manufacturing, LLC

Under ORS 95.230(1)(a), a transfer of all business assets to a newly formed company is fraudulent when the transfer is made for the purpose of avoiding payment of a judgment, where the new company conducted business nearly identical to the old company, and no other reason existed for transferring assets other than to avoid paying the judgment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

State v. Cook

ORS 164.235(1) requires both possession and intent to use a burglary tool to commit or facilitate a forcible entry or theft by physical taking. The intent element cannot be proven merely by proving the possession element.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Bennett - McCall

Automobile and officer safety exceptions applied to searches incident to an arrest for the sale of drugs where, with probable cause, officers searched defendants’ vehicle and a backpack found within; neither exception applied to a later search of the same backpack where defendants posed no immediate threat to officer safety and officers were in control of defendant’s backpack.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Broadway Cab LLC v. Employment Department

Unemployment taxes are properly assessed for employee taxicab drivers who receive remuneration for services provided to benefit their employer, where the taxicab drivers do not qualify as independent contractors under ORS 670.600(3).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Regency Centers, L.P. v. Washington County

A Washington County Traffic Control Master Plan allowed, but did not require, the County to leave a traffic signal in place at the intersection of Tualatin Sherwood Road and Petitioners' driveways. The final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals properly held jurisdiction over the decision, and did not err in substance under ORS 197.850(9)(a) in remanding the decision to the County to determine whether the traffic signal must be left in place.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

R & R Tree and Landscape, Inc. v. DCBS

In order for payroll records to be "verifiable" under OAR 836-042-0060(1), the records must include a description of the duties performed by the employee without the need for additional explanation or interpretation and must be supported by original entries from other records prepared by the employee or the employee's direct manager or supervisor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Easton

A police officer may take reasonable steps to protect herself or others, including conducting a warrantless search or seizure, "if, during the course of a lawful encounter with a citizen, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that the citizen might pose an immediate threat of serious physical injury to the officer or to others then present"; the state bears the burden of establishing that, based on the totality of the circumstance at the time, "the officer subjectively believed that a defendant posed an immediate threat of serious physical injury and that the officer's belief was objectively reasonable."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Goodenough

For offenses committed after January 1, 2009, defendants' eligibility for AIPs must be analyzed under ORS 137.751(1) rather than ORS 137.750(1), the former statute used for AIP eligibility analysis.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Lange

When an officer ordered defendant out of a restroom, that constituted a stop because a reasonable person in defendant's position would have believed that his freedom of movement was intentionally restricted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Union Lumber Co. v. Miller

Failure by an arbitrator and opposing counsel to serve documents related to arbitration and judgment as required by law are mistakes that require a court to set aside a judgment under ORCP 71B.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution

State v. Verardo

When a defendant proffers exculpatory hearsay statements for the truth of the matter asserted during his case-in-chief, defendant is subject to impeachment under OEC 806, even where the State had offered the statements in the first instance as statements of a party opponent under OEC 801(4)(b)(A).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Amerivest Financial, LLC v. Malouf

When the expected profits of investment transactions are the result of management and control by a company’s own officers, the investment transactions are not “investment contracts” for the purposes of securities fraud under ORS 59.137.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

State v. Ellis

The speedy trial delay period is measured from the date of the most recent accusatory instrument where prior accusatory instruments were dismissed, even when a new accusatory instrument is issued before the previous one is dismissed. This is measured from the initial filing date of the original instrument when that instrument was amended but not dismissed. A net delay of approximately 12 months due to insufficiency of judges is not unreasonable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Beasley

An individual is not “stopped” when an officer engages in “mere conversation” with the individual absent an explicit or implicit show of authority that objectively restricts the individual’s liberty; an individual is not “seized” when an officer requests and checks the individual’s identification with the consent of the individual, and retains the identification for a reasonable period of time to examine it.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Wilcher

A defendant’s right to be heard “by himself” is fully exercised by testifying under oath as a witness, and does not include the right to make an unsworn statement to the jury during the case-in-chief.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

IAFF, Local 3564 v. City of Grants Pass

Passage of the PECBA, which permits employees to bargain collectively with their public employers, did not nullify the ORS 652.080 mandate that firefighters’ authorized vacation or sick leave time shall be considered as time on regular duty for the purpose of calculating overtime entitlement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

C.J.L. v. Langford

In order for an Stalking Protective Order to be issued, under ORS 30.866, a petitioner must show that speech-based contacts instill a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, are unequivocal, and are objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts, such that the addressee believes the actor intends and is able to carry them out. Threats that are hyperbole, rhetorical excesses, and impotent expressions of anger or frustration are insufficient, even if they alarm the addressee.

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