Bailey Moody

Oregon Supreme Court (11 summaries)

Barrett v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.

Foreign corporations are subject to general jurisdiction of Oregon courts when "substantial and continues business presence" in Oregon is so "'continuous and systematic" as to render" the corporation "essentially at home" in Oregon. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

MT&M Gaming, Inc. v. City of Portland

Under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, a person has standing if that person can show the law about which the plaintiff seeks a judgment injures or impacts the plaintiff's "legally recognized interest."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

State v. Davidson

The constitutionality of a sentence based on repeated sex offense convictions “depend[s] on the seriousness of repetitive sexual conduct of th[e] kind [punished] and the danger that it forecasts for others unless the defendant is segregated from society.” State v. Althouse, 359 Or. 668, 685 (quoting Jensen v. Gladden, 231 Or. 141, 144-45 (1962)) (internal quotes omitted).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Davis

A defendant commits the crime of escape in the third degree when he escapes custody either "during the course of an arrest or when police attempt to restrain that person pursuant to their authority to make such an arrest." Police officers yelling, "Stop, police!" is akin to a stop and not an arrest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Nascimento

Under ORS 164.377(4), a defendant may be convicted of a computer crime if the defendant used the computer in question "without authorization." The phrase "without authorization" refers to the "use" or "access" of the computer, not use of the computer for a particular purpose.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Oakmont, LLC, v. Dept. of Rev.

The Department of Revenue has supervisory jurisdiction where facts indicate the taxpayer and assessor would agree that error in tax assessment occurred. OAR 150-306.115(4)(b)(A) does not require that the assessor is aware of facts which would clearly affect the market value of the property.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Lee v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.

The phrase "all issues of law and fact" in ORS 36.425(2) includes the amount of attorney fees. ORS 36.425(6) does not preclude discussion of the matter of attorney fees at trial, but rather creates an expedited process when "solely" the question of attorney fees remain in question after arbitration.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

State v. K.A.M.

A juvenile offender's age and homeless status are not relevant to determine whether a police interaction constituted a stop. A stop does not occur when, without some other show of authority, a law enforcement official asks to see identification or to search for contraband.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Horton v. OHSU

The cap on damages in the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.265(1) and ORS 30.271(3)(a), does not violate the remedy clause, Article I, section 10, or the jury trial clause, Article I, section 17, of the Oregon Constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

State v. Lazarides

When moving to dismiss an appeal of a criminal conviction, under ORAP 8.05(3), the state is required to show that the defendant had absconded from post-prison supervision prior to the ruling, and that the defendant was under "abscond status" at the time of the ruling.

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

State v. Beauvais

Medical evidence of child sexual abuse is admissible in a criminal case if an expert is available to testify as to the probative value and meaning of the evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Oregon Court of Appeals (109 summaries)

State v. Klingler

An affidavit to a search warrant is sufficient where it would support “a neutral and detached” magistrate’s conclusion “that there was probable cause to believe that a search . . . would reveal evidence of” a crime. State v. Heyne/Yunke, 270 Or. App. 601, 605 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Byam

Under ORS 137.123(5)(a), the imposition of consecutive sentences is precluded where, in the absence of explicit evidence of multiple intents, the same act was undertaken to achieve the same end and concurrently violated multiple criminal statutes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Welsh v. Taylor

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, trial counsel is inadequate where "counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and [the] petitioner suffered prejudice as a result." Trujilo v. Maass, 312 Or 431 (1991); ORS 138.620(2).

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

Portland Columbia Symphony v. Employment Dept.

For the purposes of ORS 670.600(3)(d), whether an individual contributed a “significant investment” is a factor in determining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor; if the individual has made a “significant investment” in the business in which the individual works, the factor weighs in favor of determining the individual is an independent contractor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Johnson v. J.G. Wentworth Originations, Inc.

Under California law, “where no interested parties object to the transfer of structured settlement payment rights,” the anti-assignment provision in the structured settlement agreement “do not bar” a court-approved transfer of structured settlement payments.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Robinson v. DeFazio

Under ORS 31.152(3), “[A] court’s discretionary authority to reduce requested attorney fees that are otherwise reasonable, . . . is subject to principled constraints. In particular, there must be a rational nexus between [an ORS 20.075] factor invoked, its underlying circumstances, and the amount of the reduction.” Grisby v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 233 Or App 210, 222, 225 P3d 101 (2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Gaylord v. DMV

Evidence of a urinalysis taken in conjunction with a DUII arrest is relevant for the purpose of determining whether a driver's license should be suspended.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Gonzalez-Sanchez

A trial court's consideration of evidence under 403 balancing is sufficient where the record indicates the court's "conscious process of balancing the costs of the evidence against its benefits."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Jones v. Bd. of Parole

Under ORS 144.125, the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision may hold a prisoner past the prisoner's release date only if (1) petitioner has a history of serious misconduct during confinement; (2) petitioner has a PSED that constitutes a danger to the community; or (3) the board deems the petitioner’s release plan to be inadequate.

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

Smith v. Dept. of Corrections

Under ORS 183.310(9)(f), rules of the conduct of inmates are unreviewable by appellate courts; OAR 291-130-0016(3) is such a rule and therefore is unreviewable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Rehfeld v. Sedgewick Claims Management Servs.

A workers' compensation claimant employed by an employer whose pay scheme does not comply with ORS chapter 656 is entitled to her "assumed wage" as compensation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Reynolds v. USF Reddaway, Inc.

The “law of the case” doctrine applies to previous appellate court rulings and not trial court or administrative rulings.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Migis v. AutoZone, Inc.

To impose civil penalties under ORS 652.150, the finder of fact must make a finding that the failure to pay wages was willful. Preservation of arguments is determined by general principles of preservation rather than the requirements of ORCP 59H.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

State v. Burk

Jury instructions which substantially amend the indictment violate Article VII, section 5, of the Oregon Constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Dulfu

Expert testimony is scientific when it "possess[es] significantly increase potential to influence the trier of fact as scientific assertions." Scientific evidence must be based on a valid foundation, to be evaluated using the Brown/O'Key factors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Waldbillig

It is plain error for a court to fail to instruct a jury on the culpable mental state of the forcible compulsion component of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Waldbillig

Failure to give a jury instruction on the culpable mental state for forcible compulsion where required is reversible error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Bice v. Bd. of Psychological Examiners

An appellate court may review a Board's final order de novo for findings of fact inconsistent with an administrative law judge's proposed order, and may reverse and remand the final order where there is substantial evidence of the truth of those facts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Hutchins

Hindering prosecution by harboring or concealing an individual under ORS 162.325(1)(a) is distinct from hindering prosecution by obstructing a person's discovery or apprehension through deception under ORS 162.325(1)(d).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Liu v. Portland State University

The Oregon Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review a final order of a public university where the university's procedures which are "substantially similar" to those used in contested cases are inconsistent with those required of contested cases under former ORS 351.088 and ORS 183.413 to 183.497.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Cintas Corp. No. 3 v. Art Erickson Tire & Auto, Inc.

Under ORS 36.425, a party has 20 days after issuance of an arbitration judgment to request a jury trial de novo, after which time the party waives the right to request trial de novo.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution

State v. Kimbrell

When giving jury instructions, a trial court must inform a jury of all matters of law necessary for their information in giving their verdict.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Goings v. CalPortland Co.

Under ORS 656.156, an employee may sue their employer for an injury covered under workers’ compensation law if the injury resulted from a deliberate intent of the employer to produce the injury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

K.L.D. v. Daley

Under ORS 107.718(1), “a FAPA restraining order will be upheld only if the evidence established that the alleged conduct create[d] an imminent danger of further abuse and a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner.”

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

State v. Orcutt

Under ORS 137.717, a trial court may impose up to the maximum presumptive prison term that would be allowed at the time of initial conviction and is not bound by the presumptive terms available at the time of a probation revocation sanction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Rock

A court can order restitution to the victim of a crime when the State proves a causal connection between the defendant’s criminal activity and the victim’s economic loss. If proven, the defendant has the burden to prove that the victim could have avoided the loss through reasonable conduct.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Musalf

Where a criminal defendant gives limited consent to a search, a police officer violates his right against unreasonable search and seizure under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, if the police officer's search extends outside that limited consent. A police officer must make a particularized explanation as to the nature of a threat to his safety in order for a warrantless search to comport with the officer safety exception of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Breece v. Amsberry

Under ORS 138.640(1), a post-conviction court is barred from entering an ambiguous judgment. Where a post-conviction court errs by entering an ambiguous judgment, the remedy is to vacate and remand the decision back to the post-conviction court.

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

Nulph v. Bd. of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Under ORS 144.228(1)(c),the phrase "reasonable cause" is a delegative term requiring the Board to exercise its discretion to define the term when making a decision under ORS 144.228(1)(c).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Branch

Where a defendant on trial for initiating a false police report moves for a judgment of acquittal, there must be evidence that the defendant did more than lie in response to police questioning during the course of a police investigation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Harris

Where hearsay evidence of a material witness is admitted and the state has not made a good faith effort to secure the witness's attendance, such admission violates the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Hirschman

ORS 260.715(9) is facially unconstitutional because the law criminalizes a "offer to purchase" ballots and therefore is directed at the the act of communicating itself and not at whatever harmful effects of the expression may exist.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Baranovich v. Brockamp

Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, prejudice means that counsel’s failure had a tendency to affect the result of the prosecution.

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

Hooker Creek Cos., LLC v. Cent. Or. Land Dev.

A trial court does not have the authority to award attorney fees on a claim resolved by a limited judgment by a second, supplemental limited judgment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Hansen v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Benton Cnty.

Under the invited error doctrine, a party fails to preserve for appeal a claim of error when the claiming party was "actively instrumental in bringing about" the alleged error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Vierria

A criminal defendant, in his right to court-appointed counsel, does not have a right to another court-appointed attorney in the absence of a legitimate complaint concerning the one already appointed. A sentence for the crime of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (UUV) may not exceed a maximum indeterminate sentence of 60 months.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Medina v. State of Oregon

A plaintiff makes a prima facie case when the evidence the plaintiff presents could cause a rational trier of fact to infer the claim is true. A trial court may not grant summary judgment to a defendant when the plaintiff has made a prima facie case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Winn

The scope of consent is determined on what a typical, reasonable person would have understood in the totality of the circumstances. Consent to search a closed container inside a purse is not granted by consent to search the entire purse.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Johnson

A motion under ORS 138.690 for DNA testing of evidence used against a defendant in post-conviction relief proceedings does not constitute a collateral attack on the underlying conviction or validity of the proceedings. A motion that produces exculpatory evidence may or may not constitute a collateral attack on the validity of the underlying conviction or proceedings in violation of a previous plea agreement.

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

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

The benchmark for proving a parent has made "adequate process toward reunification" is not "mere participation in services," but rather whether a parent had progressed in the standards set out in ORS 419B.498(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Cunningham v. Premo

Under ORS 138.550(3), a subsequent petition for post-conviction relief may not contain successive claims which could reasonably have been made in the previous petition.

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

State v. Guerrero

Waiver of the right to counsel in criminal proceedings may be implied by misconduct only if (1) the defendant receives warning that repeated misconduct will force him to appear pro se, and (2) the defendant is allowed an opportunity to explain the situation in court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

McKenzie v. A. W. Chesterson Co.

Under ORS 30.920(1) a manufacturer sending products in asbestos-containing packaging has a duty to warn the buyer of the risks of asbestos, even if the manufacturer does not make the packaging.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Summers

ORS 136.570 does not warrant the exclusion of witnesses from testifying as a remedy for its violation. ORS 135.865 allows the trial court to have "broad discretion in its choice of sanctions for failure to disclose names of witnesses in a criminal case."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Smith

Under the officer safety exception to warranties searches of Article 1, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, the state must show that the officer had an objectively reasonable concern for safety based on facts specific to the particular person searched.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Anderson-Brown

A Defendant bears the burden of framing the issues in a motion to suppress in a way that informs a trial court of what the defendant is asking the court to do, and that notifies the state of the contentions it must respond to. To sufficiently preserve error on appeal, a defendant must frame the issues in a way that makes the defendant’s contention sufficiently clear to the state and the trial court to give them the opportunity to understand the contention and fairly respond to it.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Eskie

Under ORS 813.135 and 813.136, evidence of a criminal defendant's refusal to comply with a field sobriety test is inadmissible if the arresting officer fails to notify the defendant that evidence of this non-compliance is admissible in trial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Smith v. Dept. of Corrections

Under ORS 179.360(1)(f), only the superintendent of the Department of Corrections may appoint a chief medical officer. OAR 291-124-0016(2) is invalid. An agency policy is a rule and not an internal management directive if it has a direct effect on people who are not agency employees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Austin

A trial court may not impose punitive sanctions in a remedial contempt proceeding.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Weitman Excavation, LLC v. CPM Development Corp.

Under ORS 36.715, attorney fees may only be awarded when incurred in a judicial proceeding. Under ORS 20.190(3), in order to award an "enhanced prevailing party fee," the court must show that the opposing party acted in a manner that is not "in good faith" or "objectively reasonable."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution

J.D.K. v. W.T.F.

Under ORS 30.866, a petitioner for a civil stalking protective order must show that the petitioner has a reasonable fear for their safety as a result of at least two unwelcome contacts by the respondent.

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

Kelley v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

Under ORS 742.061(1), insurance companies are required to to pay attorney fees to the insured unless the insurance companies actions fall within the attorney fee "safe harbor."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Housego

A trial court may not impose attorney fees when there is no evidence in the record of the imposed's ability to pay those fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Kinkel v. Persson

ORS 138.550 bars subsequent petitions for post-conviction relief if the grounds on which relief is requested could have been reasonably argued in a previous petition.

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

Stanley v. Myers

Hearsay evidence used by a county sheriff to form an opinion on a person's fitness to retain a concealed carry license is admissible to show the state of mind of the sheriff upon making that determination.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Brown

In a criminal investigation, when a suspect makes an "equivocal request for counsel," police act within the confines of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution when they continue interrogation without asking clarifying questions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Thomas

Under Art. I Section 9, subjective perceptions of "unusual" glances between defendants may not be sufficient to uphold a warrantless search under the "officer safety" exception to the bar on the admission of evidence procured during a warrantless search.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

La Manna v. City of Cornelius

A trial court errs in granting summary judgment to a party when another party has raised genuine issues of material fact regarding the claims in question.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

DeLashmutt v. Parker Group Investments, LLC

If a term is stated explicitly in a contract, its definition is not in question. If a conflicting term is not stated explicitly in the contract, the explicit term governs.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Emrys v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon

If two parties enter an agreement to insure a property, but identify the wrong property, an antecedent agreement to reform a contract has been met.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Hamilton v. SAIF

The issue of whether a request for hearing is timely is a jurisdictional issue and must be decided by the Worker's Compensation Board as a threshold issue if presented as an issue in the original claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Merritt and Alter

A claim that one party to dissolution overpaid child support to the other will fail without proper documentation of such overpayment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

SIF Energy, LLC v. Dept. of Energy

ORS 469.215(4) required the Department of Energy to certify up to 110% of the actual costs of an action qualifying for a business energy tax credit. The Oregon legislature spoke clearly on the matter and did not leave room for agency interpretation otherwise.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Washington Fed. Savings and Loan v. Cheung

Under OEC 408, evidence of settlement communications is inadmissible if used to prove or show liability of a claim or its amount.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Hill v. Coursey

A court-appointed attorney is not constitutionally inadequate when the attorney fails to object to testimony of an out-of-court statement detailing an opinion about the credibility of another witness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Southard and Larkins

In custody proceedings, custody of a child may be granted to a primary caretaker who is a stepparent of a child; a primary caretaker seeking custody of a child may overcome the presumption that a biological parent acts in the best interest of a child if the caretaker may show that the child will face a detriment if removed from the primary caretaker's custody.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Kasper

A court may not impose attorney fees without announcing them in the presence of a criminal defendant; an imprisoned criminal defendant does not more disadvantaged than those similarly situated when he is denied the ability to credit time already served to a new sentence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Kuester

Convictions for separate crimes stemming from the same event may not be merged unless they share all elements in common; an indefinite sentence of post-prison supervision is not permitted by State v. Stalder.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Santoscoy v. DMV

An agency did not fail to give a license applicant notice for the reason his license was suspended where the applicant failed to raise the notice issue until he brought it up his reply brief.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Templeton

Under ORS 138.694, it is not necessary to file for and be granted a petition for assistance of counsel prior to filing a motion for which the assistance of counsel was requested.

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

State v. Febuary

The doctrine of "presumption of vindictiveness" only applies when a criminal defendant is resentenced to a longer or otherwise more severe total sentence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Smith v. Dept. of Corrections

In notice and comment rulemaking, complaints against a fiscal impact statement may only be considered if they show how the fiscal impact of the rule would affect factors not considered by the agency promulgating a rule.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Flagg

A court may not impose attorney fees on a criminal defendant without discussion of the defendant's ability to pay those fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Graham

A court may not impose attorney fees on a criminal defendant without discussion of the defendant's ability to pay those fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Steele

Under Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, a police officer must have a "reasonable suspicion," which may include "reasonable safety concerns," to conduct a pat-down search during an investigation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State ex rel Willamette Cmty. Hlth. Sols. v. Lane Cty.

Under ORS 215.429(4), either a governing body or a designee may permit or deny a land use permit application. An applicant may not file a mandamus action to compel the government body to act if either the governing body or a designee has responded to the application, even if the response was issued after the 150-day limit.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Hall v. State of Oregon

Oregon whistleblower statutes require subjective good faith; an employee may have been wrongfully discharged when he filed a police report against his employer if the filing was objectively reasonable within the circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Goodman v. SAIF Corp.

Upon review of a denied claim for a new injury based on a combined condition, the Workers Compensation Board must determine whether the new injury has ceased to be a major contributing cause of or need for treatment for the combined condition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Mross

The standard of determining whether content is a "lewd exhibition" is whether a reasonable fact finder could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the content was created "with the intent of stimulating the lust or sexual desires of the person who views it."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Nutt

ORS 153.633 provides that up to $60 of fines paid by criminal defendants are allocated to the state; the statute is not intended to impose an additional $60 fine on criminal defendants.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Philbert v. Kluser

Affirmed without discussion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Barger

The Court of Appeals has discretion to reverse trial court's imposition of attorney fees where the trial court did not determine the defendant's ability to pay attorney fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Turner

A defendant's motion to sever claims may be denied if crimes against multiple victims are “sufficiently simple and distinct to mitigate the dangers created by joinder"; Court of Appeals may reverse trial court's imposition of attorney fees if the court did not discuss defendant's ability to pay those fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Opitz

An appellate court may reverse judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees if the trial court erred in its assessment of defendant's ability to pay those fees; an appellate court does not have authority to exercise discretion when the trial court refuses to order defendant eligible for sentence modification.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Sanger v. Employment Dept.

The Employment Appeals Board is required to review de novo appeals regarding unemployment benefits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Waters

DEQ's lack of authority to issue a permit is not a valid defense to not owning a permit. Suction dredging does not cause a discharge requiring an NPDES permit.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

State v. Flores-Celestino

Trial court's error in determining its authority to vacate its own judgment not considered sufficiently "obvious" for the purpose of plain error review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Kiryuta v. Country Preferred Ins. Co.

When a defendant insurance company files a safe-harbor provision but takes steps to pursue litigation outside of damages sought by the plaintiff insured, the safe-harbor provision is nullified.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Dept. of Human Services v. T.M.S.

In juvenile dependency cases, it is not sufficient for a parent seeking reunification to use cooperation with provided services as basis for reversal of a court's decision to change a permanency plan from reunification to adoption.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Jay

A prosecutor's mention of questions that an arresting officer asked Defendant during the arrest are considered sufficiently incidental to statements made by Defendant. Accordingly, they are properly excluded from evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Dept. of Human Services v. E.N.

Parental rights may be terminated if a parent is determined to be unfit as a parent, if integration of the child into the parent's care is improbable due to conduct or conditions not likely to change, and if termination is in the best interests of the child.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Gattucio v. Averill

For the purpose of determining liability under ORS 124.115, a "person" refers to the defendant entity itself, not to natural persons acting on behalf of the entity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Davenport

The officer-safety exception to the warrant requirement of search and seizure does not apply to situations in which a suspect is cooperative and does not cause the officer to reasonably suspect that the suspect poses a serious risk or harm.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. G.R.M.

Evidence that a complaining witness instigated physical altercations with a criminal defendant is sufficient for a jury to potentially find that witness biased and may be used as evidence for the purpose of impeachment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Smith v. Board of Parole

Administrative rules OAR 255-030-0025 and OAR 255-030-0026 are valid in accordance with the policies of the Board of Parole.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Nacoste

A criminal Defendant may cross-examine a testifying alleged victim concerning the victim's juvenile adjudication history if used to show bias or motive in the alleged victim's reporting or to show victim's attempt to curry favor with prosecution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Booth

Evidence obtained during an unlawfully extended traffic stop is inadmissible.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Nickerson

A mere discussion of Defendant's ability to have a job is insufficient to conclude Defendant's ability to pay court-appointed attorney fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

U.S. Bank v. Pohrman

To determine whether an employee's injury sustained during a paid break is compensable, the Worker's Compensation Board must first determine whether the employee was injured during the scope of employment, and then must determine whether employee was on a "personal mission" or if the personal comfort doctrine applies.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Trujillo

Expert testimony that "retrograde extrapolation" is a practice that is accepted in the field of forensic science is sufficient to admit evidence of "retrograde extrapolation" in DUII cases.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Williams

Trial court plainly erred when it failed to determine whether Defendant was capable of paying attorney's fees before imposing fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. McRae

Trial court's denial to admit evidence of police officer's prior inconsistent statement not a grave enough error to warrant reversal of judgement if the difference in statements is not "qualitatively different" enough to warrant reversal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Helms

Trial court plainly erred when it assigned attorney fees to the Defendant without determining whether Defendant was able to pay those fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Hunt

An appellate court may reverse judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney's fees if the trial court erred in its assessment of defendant's ability to pay those fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Altenhofen and Vanden-Busch

Defendant may be held in contempt for failure to pay child support if able to afford a portion of the ordered amount but fails to pay.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Combest

Police department's investigation of criminal activity on a public file sharing network not considered a "search" which would trigger a privacy interest on the behalf of a user of the network.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Shapiro

Under ORS 164.215 and ORS 164.043, an emergency room waiting area is not considered "open to the public" if a security guard is present.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dept. of Human Services v. R.S.

Under ORS 419.476(2)(a), in order to permit a child to return to a parent's home from foster care, a juvenile court must determine that a parent has made "reasonable efforts" and "sufficient progress" in creating a safe environment for the child.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Larrance

Under ORS 138.083, the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to amend an entire sentence which had been determined using an erroneous understanding of the law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing