Erin O’Riley

Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)

Dillard v. Premo

Under ORS 138.525(3), a judgment that dismisses a meritless post-conviction petition is not appealable, however, the dismissal must “without prejudice” if the petitioner lacked counsel or the petition was dismissed without a hearing. ORS 138.525(4).

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

Oregon Court of Appeals (11 summaries)

Lujan v. Myrick

Under ORS 138.520, the post-conviction court has expansive authority to grant relief that is “proper and just” in order to cure any prejudice a criminal defendant has suffered. Hinton v. Hill, 342 Or 222, 149 P3d 1205 (2006)

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

State v. Rogers

Under former ORS 181.599, failing to report as a sex offender is a felony if the juvenile defendant’s conviction for underlying crimes would have been felony sex crimes, had the defendant been an adult. State v. Hinkle, 287 Or App 786, 788, ___ P3d ___ (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Erickson

Under ORS 164.015, theft is committed when a person “with intent to deprive another of property, takes such property from an owner.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Bibolet v. Employment Dept.

OAR 471-030-0125(5)(c) provides that a "blanket test" is one applied “uniformly to a specified group or class of employees.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Fenner v. Fenner

"No-contest provisions are valid and enforceable," but should be read narrowly using the express terms contained therein. Frakes v. Nay, 254 Or App 236, 247-248 (2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trusts and Estates

State v. Sippel

When an alternative theory is presented by the prosecution late in the case, the court must instruct the jury that a specific number of jurors must agree on what exact factual events constitute the crime if the prosecution presents more than one theory in its case. State v. Ashkins, 357 Or 642, 659, 357 P3d 490, (2015); State v. Teagues, 281 Or App 182, 194, 383 P3d 320 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Vaida v. Howells Custom Cabinets

The Court of Appeals will designate a prevailing party “only if the court reverses or substantially modifies the judgment.” ORAP 13.05.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Rockbridge Capital v. City of Eugene

LUBA may remand a decision to a local governing body when that issue has been raised under a local ordinance. Smith v. Douglas County, 93 Or App 503, 763 P2d 169 (1988), aff’d, 308 Or 191, 777 P2d 1377 (1989); OAR 661-010-0071. Adecision by LUBA to remand to a local governing body is not “unlawful in substance” if the issues are properly raised before the local governing bodies. ORS 197.850(9)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

State v. Johnson

Under ORS 135.432(3), a defendant must be given a reasonable opportunity to withdraw his or her plea if the trial court changes the terms of a sentencing agreement after already having accepted them.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Ixcolin-Otzoy

To preserve an argument for appeal, a party must proffer a precise and narrow explanation of the objection to the trial court so that it may have ample opportunity to address any errors. State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343, 15 P3d 22 (2000).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Von Flue

Under Article 1, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, a warrantless search is considered unreasonable unless an exception to the warrant requirement can be established. State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177 (2006). The automobile exception allows an officer to "search a car without a warrant, if the officer has probable cause to believe the car contains evidence of a crime and the car is mobile at the time they stop it." State v. Anderson, 361 OR 187, 189 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure