Oregon Supreme Court (16 summaries)
State v. Iseli
Under OEC 804(1)(e), a witness is unavailable in situations where the declarant "is absent from the hearing and the proponent of the declarant's statement has been unable to procure the declarant's attendance by process or other reasonable means."
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Guzman/Heckler
"[C]lose element matching requires a foreign offense have 'elements that are the same as or nearly the same as the elements of' the Oregon crime to which it is compared." State v. Carlton, 361 Or 29, 43, 388 P3d 1093 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Hedgpeth
"[F]acts in issue can 'be established by reasonable inferences, but not through speculation.'" State v. Jesse, 360 Or 584, 597 P3d 1063 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Kramer v. City of Lake Oswego
Oregon owns the lands underlying navigable waters of the state as a representative of the people and "the ownership is that of the people in their united sovereignty, while the waters remain public so that all persons may use the same for navigation and fishing," and the rights flowing from ownership of submersible lands includes a right of pass from the upland border of that land to the adjacent water. See generally Corvallis Sand & Gravel v. Land Board, 250 Or 319, 439 P2d 575 (1968), Eagle Cliff Fishing Co. v. McGowan, 70 Or 1, 137 P 766 (1914), & Smith Tug v. Columbia-Pac. Towing, 250 Or 612, 443 P2d 205 (1968).
Area(s) of Law:- Water Rights
Eastern Oregon Mining Assoc. v. DEQ
If there is ambiguity in the text of the Clean Water Act, courts must look to the agencies' implementing regulations and if those regulations are ambiguous, to the agencies' interpretation and application of their regulations to determine what the act means. Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 557 US 261, 277-78, 129 S Ct 2458, 174 L Ed 2d 193 (2009)
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Eugene Water and Electric Board v. PERB
Under former ORS 237.011 (1981), a person is only eligible for the PERS benefits if they are "in the service of a public employer for a six month period," and under former ORS 237.071(2), "the employer must deduct the contributions of employees from the payroll and transmit that information to the board to create an account for the employee in the fund."
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
White v. Premo
In order to impose a life sentence without parole on a juvenile who commits a homicide, the homicide must reflect the juvenile's "irreparable corruption rather than the transient immaturity of youth." Miller v. Alabama, 567 US 460, 479-80, 132 S Ct 2455, 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Savinskiy
"[T]he purpose of the Article I, section 11, right is to ensure that a defendant charged with a crime has the benefit of an attorney's presence, advice, and expertise 'in any situation where the state may glean involuntary and incriminating evidence or statements for use in the prosecution of its case against defendant.'" State v. Prieto-Rubio, 359 Or 16, 36, 376 P3d 255 (2016) (quoting State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 93, 672 P2d 1182 (1983)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Gadalean v. SAIF
Under ORS 656.005(30), a "'worker' means any person, including a minor whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, who engages to furnish services for a remuneration, subject to the direct control of an employer."
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Chavez v. State of Oregon
Pursuant to ORS 138.510(3), "[a] petition pursuant to ORS 138.510 to 138.680 must be filed within two years of the [date that the challenged conviction became final], unless the court on hearing a subsequent petition finds grounds for relief asserted which could not reasonably have been raised in the original or amended petition."
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Foote v. State of Oregon
Under ORS 28.020, declaratory relief may be sought by "[a]ny person whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a constitution, statute, municipal charter, ordinance, contract, or franchise may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under any such instrument."
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
Gutale v. State of Oregon
The Court has made clear "that a ground for relief reasonably could have been raised under one of two circumstances: (1) when the ground for relief was known or (2) when the ground for relief was reasonably available, despite not being known." Verduzco v. State of Oregon, 357 Or 553, 566, 355 P3d 902 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Banks
"Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of 'persons'" and "a search of one's breath is protected under that provision." State v. Newton, 291 Or 788, 800, 636 P2d 393 (1981), overruled on other grounds by State v. Spencer, 305 Or 59, 750 P2d 147 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Beyer v. Rosenblum
Under ORS 250.035, ballot titles for Initiative Petitions from the Attorney General must comply with a handful of requirements about length, clarity, and neutrality.
Area(s) of Law:- Ballot Titles
Miller v. Ford Motor Co.
"Under ORS 30.905(2), when an Oregon product liability action involves a product that was manufactured in a state that has no statute of repose for an equivalent civil action, then the action in Oregon also is not subject to a statute of repose."
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Lutz v. Rosenblum
Under ORS 250.035(2), the caption, result statements, and summary of ballot measures must succinctly and clearly identify the subject matter, purpose, and major effect of the proposed measure.
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (123 summaries)
Dept. of Human Services v. M. A. N.
"The juvenile code does not permit decisions to terminate parental rights to hinge on abstract notions of permanency. . . [r]ather, the juvenile code demands a persuasive factual showing that termination of parental rights to a particular child is in that child's best interest, in view of the particular needs and circumstances of the child." Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. M. H., 294 Or App 749, 750, 432 P3d 1186 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 556 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Sherman v. Dept. of Human Services
"ORS 12.117 allows plaintiffs to bring claims based on child abuse that are potentially decades old, and the statute of ultimate repose in ORS 12.115 has no bearing on the timeliness of those claims;" and "the exception to the statute of ultimate repose is not a 'limitation on the commencement of an action' under ORS 30.275(9)."
Dept. of Human Services v. C.S.C.
"If DHS advocates for a change in the child's permanency plan, DHS must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, both that it has made reasonable efforts towards safely reunifying the family and that the child's parents have nonetheless made insufficient progress for that to occur." Dept. of Human Services v. S.M.H., 283 Or App 295, 305, 388 P3d 1204 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dept. of Human Services v. M.C.C.
"Reasonable efforts are 'efforts that focus on ameliorating the adjudicated bases for jurisdiction, and that give "parents a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate their ability to adjust their conduct and become minimally adequate parents."'" Dept. of Human Services v. L.L.S., 290 Or App 132, 138, 413 P3d 1005 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Davis v. Kelly
To establish that counsel rendered inadequate assistance, it must be proven that (1) the trial counsel "failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and (2) a prejudice element - in this context, that counsel's failure had 'a tendency to affect the result of his trial.'" Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Baertlein and Stocks
"[W]hether, when a party seeks, pursuant to ORS 107.104, to enforce some stipulated term of the dissolution judgement in the context of modification proceedings under ORS 107.135, attorney fees incurred in those enforcement efforts can be recovered under ORS 107.135(8)." Berry and Huffman, 247 Or App 651, 271 P3d 128 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Camirand
"Oregon's constitutional test for affirmance despite error consists of a single inquiry: Is there little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict?" State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
NV Transport, Inc. v. V & Y Horizon, Inc.
"An interference in another party's contractual or other economic relations is tortious only if it is 'wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself,' such as by improper means or improper motive." Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. Chase Gardens, Inc., 328 Or 487, 498, 982 P2d 1117 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Rockett
"When a trial court is presented with a request to exclude evidence as unfairly prejudicial under OEC 403, the court should (1) consider the quantum of probative value of the evidence and consider the weight or strength of the evidence; (2) determine how prejudicial the evidence is and the extent to which the evidence may distract the jury from the central question whether the defendant committed the charged crime; (3) balance the prosecution's need for the evidence against the countervailing danger of unfair prejudice; and (4) consider whether to admit all the proponent's evidence, none, or some portion of it." State v. Anderson, 363 Or 392, 423 P3d 43 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Fleming v. SAIF
Under ORS 656.289(4)(b), "[i]insurers or self-insured employers who are parties to an approved disputed claim settlement under this subsection shall not be joined as parties in subsequent proceedings under this chapter to determine responsibility for payment for claim conditions for which settlement has been made."
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Johnson v. Premo
"If the party arguing against mootness can identify practical effects or collateral consequences that flow from the underlying challenged decision, then the party advocating mootness must show that the effects and consequences identified are either legally insufficient or factually incorrect." Garges v.Premo, 362 Or 797, 802, 421 P3d 345 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Int. Assn. Machinist, Woodworkers Local W-246 v. Heil
"When determining whether the offer of judgment under ORCP 54(E) was more favorable than the judgment, the court must compare both amounts." Mulligan v. Hornbuckle, 227 Or App 520, 523, 206 P3d 1078 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
OR-OSHA v. A & B Sheet Metal Works
"As set forth by a leading treatise, federal law dictates that the agency must show, in the absence of proof of actual exposure, that it is reasonably predictable that employees, by 'operational necessity' or otherwise (including inadvertence) in the course of their work or associated activities (e.g., going to rest rooms) will be in the zone of danger created by the cited condition." OR-OSHA v. Moore Excavation, Inc., 257 Or App 567, 577, 307 P3d 510 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Stau v. Taylor
Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, a party may prove that trial counsel rendered inadequate assistance if they prove (1) a performance element, or a failure to exercise reasonable professional judgement, and (2) a prejudice element, that the party suffered prejudice as a result of the inadequacy. See Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Vukanovich v. Kine
When neither party requests a de novo review, and the case does not appear to warrant doing so due to exceptional circumstances, the court reviews a trial court's legal conclusions for errors of law and its factual findings to determine whether the findings are supported by evidence in the record. ORAP 5.40(8)(c); Vukanovich v. Kine, 268 Or App 623, 633, 342 P3d 1075 (Vukanovich II), adh'd to as modified on recons, 271 Or App 133, 349 P3d 567 (2015 (Vukanovich III).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
M & T Partners, Inc. v. Miller
Under ORS 197.829, LUBA "'shall affirm a local government interpretation of its comprehensive plan and land use regulations,' unless LUBA finds that specified conditions are satisfied."
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Barrett
The Court may "decline to address constitutional questions where the record was 'too inconclusive to justify the adoption of the constitutional rule urged by defendant.'" City of Portland v. Juntunen, 6 Or App 632, 635, 488 P2d 806 (1971).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Restore Oregon v. City of Portland
Under ORS 197.850(9)(1), LUBA orders are reviewed to determine if the decision was "unlawful in substance or procedure."
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County
In a specialized zoning context, "'incidental and subordinate to' means more than that the accessory use occurs less frequently than the primary use," and in statutory context, ORS 215.283(4)(d) was intended to spark a comparison on the nature, intensity, and economic value of proposed agri-tourism events rather than solely relying on frequency of activities.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Arnold
"[T]he rules for personal service under ORCP 7 'do not require actual in-hand delivery, or a face-to-face encounter with an acknowledgement of identity from the person to be served,' because '[t]o so require would allow a defendant to defeat service simply by refusing to identify himself or accept the papers.'" Business & Prof. Adj. Co. v. Baker, 62 Or App 237, 240-41, 659 P2d 1025 (1983).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Waldorf v. Premo
"[C]ompetent counsel can make 'tactical choices that backfire, because, by their nature, trials often involve risk.'" Krumacher v. Gierloff, 290 Or 867, 875, 627 P2d 458 (1981).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Walter v. Board of Education
"A law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class will be upheld so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate state interest." Romer v. Evans, 517 US 620, 631, 116 S Ct 1620, 134 L Ed 2d 855 (1996).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dept. of Human Services v. T. D. G.
"[I]n order for a juvenile court to take jurisdiction over a child on the ground that the child is endangered, the state must establish both that the child is at risk of a certain severity of harm and that there is a reasonable likelihood that the risk will be realized." Dept. of Human Services v. S. D. I., 259 Or App 116, 121, 312 P3d 608 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Chavez-Meza
"The burden is on the state to 'overcome [the presumption that confessions are involuntary] by offering evidence affirmatively establishing that the confession was voluntary.'" State v. Jackson, 364 Or 1, 21, 430 P3d 1067 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Riekens
"The record must support a nonspeculative inference that there is a causal relationship between the defendant's criminal activities and the victim's economic damages." State v. Akerman, 278 Or App 486, 490, 380 P3d 309 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. H.
Under ORS 419B.387, "[i]f the court finds in an evidentiary hearing that treatment or training is needed by a parent to correct the circumstances that resulted in wardship or to prepare the parent to resume the care of the ward, the court may order the parent to participate in the treatment or training if the participation is in the ward's best interests."
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Smith
"If there is a significant danger that the jury will be misled by hearing evidence of a writing, act, declaration, or conversation taken out of context the rule [OEC 106] authorizes the supplementary evidence to be admitted contemporaneously." Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Oregon Evidence § 106.04, 69-70 (6th ed 2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Vasilash v. Cain
"Under Article I, section 11, where the effect of an attorney's failure during a jury trial is at issue, only those errors that 'could have tended to affect' the outcome of the trial require [reversal]." Farmer v. Premo, 363 Or 679, 700-01, 427 P3d 170 (2018) (quoting Green v. Franke, 357 Or 301, 322, 350 P3d 188 (2015).)
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Dreyer v. PGE
"The term 'law of the case' is best reserved for use in the context in which a party seeks to relitigate an appellate decision. Use of the term to address other issues may confuse rather than clarify." Kennedy v. Wheeler, 356 Or 518, 531, 341 P3d 728 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Brooks v. Tube Specialties - TSCO International
Under OAR 436-060-0140(1)(a), "[a] reasonable investigation is whatever steps are a reasonably prudent person with knowledge of the legal standards for determining compensability would take in a good faith effort to ascertain the facts underlying a claim, giving due consideration to the cost of the investigation and the likely value of the claim."
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Lawson
"To have probable cause, an officer must subjectively believe that a violation has occurred, and that belief must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances." State v. Stookey, 255 Or App 489, 491, 297 P3d 548 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Sanders v. Brown
"[Adequate assistance] of counsel is particularly important when a defendant is called upon to waive fundamental rights, as by a guilty plea or waiver of jury trial[.]" Krummacher v. Gierloff, 290 Or 867, 874-75, 627 P2d 458 (1981).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Rossiter
"[I]t is not this court's function to speculate as to what a party's argument might be. Nor is it our proper function to make or develop a party's argument when that party has not endeavored to do so itself." Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific, 186 Or App 696, 700 n2, 64 P3d 1193, adh'd to on recons, 187 Or App 472, 68 P3d 259 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Sassarini
"Where a proponent has made that prima facie showing [that evidence is what the proponent claims it to be], the matter of authenticity is one for the ultimate factfinder at trial, not a preliminary ruling by the court." See OEC 104(2); Legislative Commentary on OEC 901, reprinted in Oregon Evidence § 901.02 at 946.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Ramoz
"ORCP 64 B(6) provides that a new trial may be granted following a jury trial where the party's substantial rights were materially affected by '[e]rror in law occurring at the trial and objected to or excepted to by the party making the application.'"
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Z. W. Y. (A167562)
The court may determine whether a party's mental disorder makes them "highly likely to engage in future violence towards others, absent commitment." See State v. S. E. R., 297 Or App 121, 122, 441 P3d 254 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Dept. of Human Services v. R. A. B.
"Because . . . it is OEC 403 and OEC 702 that make a diagnosis of sex abuse inadmissible when it is not based on physical evidence, it is logical to conclude that it also is those rules of evidence that make testimony about the criteria used in such a diagnosis inadmissible." State v. Black, 364 Or 579, 592-94, 437 P3d 1121 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Zaldana-Mendoza
"[W]e focus on 'the possible influence of the error on the verdict rendered, not whether this court, sitting as a factfinder, would regard the evidence of guilt as substantial and compelling.'" State v. Scott, 265 Or App 542, 335 P3d 1283 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Decleve
"[A] sentence that comports with the 'shift-to-I' rule, but violates the '200% rule, must be adjusted to comply with the latter." State v. Worth, 274 Or App 1, 26, 360 P3d 536 (2015), rev den, 359 Or 667 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Day v. Day
"No estate or interest in real property, other than a lease for [a] term not exceeding one year, nor any trust or power concerning such property, can be created, transferred or declared otherwise than by operation of law or by a conveyance or other instrument in writing." ORS 93.020(1)
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Otnes v. PCC Structurals, Inc.
Pursuant to UTCR 21.080(5)(a), "A filer who resubmits a document under this subsection must include: '(i) [a] cover letter that sets out the date of the original submission and the date of rejection and that explains the reason for requesting that the date of filing relate back to the original submission.'" (emphasis omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Lafountain
To prove that a party is living somewhere else, the state must both prove that defendant was no longer living at his former residence and that defendant established a new residence. State v. Hiner, 269 Or App 447, 452, 345 P3d 478 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Yarbrough v. Viewcrest Investments, LLC
"ORCP 71 A codified Oregon case law, which had previously given the court power to correct 'clerical, as contrasted with judicial errors, in order to make the record speak the truth and conform it to what actually occurred.'" Hubbard v. Hubbard, 213 Or 482, 487, 324 P2d 469 (1958).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Morrow
"OEC 404(3) unquestionably forbids the admission of evidence solely to show propensity or that the defendant is a bad person." State v. Johns, 301 Or 535, 548-49, 725 P2d 312 (1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Pride Disposal Co. v. Valet Waste, LLC
"[T]he 'collection' and 'transportation' of garbage. . . occurs when an approved collection container is collected from a designated pickup point by. . . collection vehicles on the scheduled day and then transported over the city streets to an authorized facility" [under the Tigard Municipal Code].
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Mathis v. St. Helens Auto Center, Inc.
"ORS 652.200(2) does not contain any 'beat the offer' language. . . it simply provides for attorney fees in a particular type of action, subject to a few conditions. . . [and] is therefore unlike ORS 20.080(1), ORS 742.061(1), or ORCP 54 E."
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Goodwin v. NBC Universal Media - NBC Universal
Under ORS 656.319(1), an employer must be able to connect a hearing request to the particular denial or matter to which it relates; so a request for a hearing must be related to a particular denial by referencing the particular denial that is being challenged, either directly or indirectly.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Curry
"The discriminatory use of peremptory challenges by the prosecution causes a criminal defendant cognizable injury. . . [r]ather it is because racial discrimination in the selection of jurors 'casts doubt on the integrity of the judicial process,' and paces the fairness of a criminal proceeding in doubt." Powers v. Ohio, 499 US 400, 411-12, 111 S Ct 1364, 113 L Ed 2d 411 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Preble v. Centennial School Dist. No. 287
"When confronted with multiple statutes that appear to conflict, courts are obliged to engage in a two part-analysis; [f]irst, they must determine whether there is any way to reconcile the apparent conflict without exceeding the bounds of reasonable construction of the wording of the statutes. . . Second, if such harmonizing is not possible, then the courts must apply established rules of construction that give precedence to one of the conflicting statutes over the other." See, e.g., Powers v. Quigley, 345 Or 432, 438, 198 P3d 919 (2008); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. M. T., 321 Or 419, 426, 899 P2d 1192 (1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners
"[T]he present owner of the property is the only person whom a governing body may allow 'to use the property for a use permitted at the time the owner acquired the property.'" Former ORS 197.352(8) (2005)
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Miller v. Racing Commission
"Generally, equitable estoppel requires, among other things, a false representation." Day v. Advanced M&D Sales, Inc., 336 Or 511, 518-19, 86 P3d 678 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Alexander Loop, LLC v. City of Eugene
To determine if a contract provision is ambiguous and thereby not suitable for summary judgment, the court first looks to the text of the disputed provision and if still ambiguous, it examines extrinsic evidence; if still ambiguous, the court looks to appropriate maxims of construction. Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358, 937 P2d 1019 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Skillicorn
"The 'basic idea' behind that theory of relevance [the doctrine of chances] is 'the proposition that multiple instances of similar conduct are unlikely to occur accidentally." State v. Tena, 362 Or 514, 524, 412 P3d 175 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Brumwell v. Premo
"Under Article I, section 11, '[t]o demonstrate that he is entitled to post-conviction relief, petitioner must show that counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and that petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel's inadequacy.'" Sparks v. Premo, 289 Or App 159, 169, 408 P3d 276 (2017), rev den, 363 Or 119, cert den, ___ US ___, 139 S Ct 569 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Cox v. Premo
"When a petitioner seeks to establish that counsel failed to exercise reasonable skill and judgment, what constitutes adequate performance is fact-specific and dependent on the 'nature and complexity of the case.'" Richardson v. Belleque, 362 Or 236, 255, 406 P3d 1074 (2017) (quoting Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 701, 399 P3d 431 (2017)).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Linn County v. Brown
Constitutional amendments are interpreted within the same framework as statutes, which requires looking at the text, context, and legislative history of the amendment to determine the voters' intent. State v. Sagdal, 356 Or 639, 642-43, 343 P3d 226 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Slagle
"Where a defendant pleads guilty or no contest to committing crimes 'on or between' a range of dates as alleged in the charging instrument, the state can prove that the defendant committed the offense on any of the dates alleged because the defendant, 'by failing to limit or qualify his pleas, assent[s] to the broadest construction of his pleas.'" Hibbard v. Board of Parole, 144 Or App 82, 87-88 925 P2d 910 (1996), vac'd on other grounds, 327 Or 594, 965 P2d 1022 (1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Casebeer v. Krocker
Whether a deed is a mortgage is based on "consideration of the whole transaction, by the 'mutual intention of the parties at the time the transaction was consummated.'" Swenson v. Mills, 198 Or App 236, 242, 108 P3d 77 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
State v. Xiu-Chable
"ORS 811.706 does not authorize an award of restitution that includes 'speculative, uncertain, and open-ended amounts.'" State v. Hval, 174 Or App 164, 178, 25 P3d 958, rev den, 332 Or 559 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Link
"The susceptibility of juveniles to immature and irresponsible material is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult," therefore, “[f]rom a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed." Roper v. Simmons, 543 US 551, 570, 125 S Ct 1183 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Delp
Under Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution, "all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense," and the courts assess this by considering "(1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant." State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58, 217 P3d 659 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Peirce
"The state may prove a defendant's knowledge with circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences," but the inferred fact "must be one that a rational factfinder can be convinced follows beyond a reasonable doubt from the underlying facts." State v. Korth, 269 Or App 238, 242, 344 P3d 491 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Jones
Questions that are necessary to secure an officer's safety or the safety of the public and are not designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect are allowed as a public safety exception to the Fifth Amendment. New York v. Quarles, 467 US 649, 659, 104 S Ct 2626, 81 L Ed 2d 550 (1984).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Roden
In analyzing evidence, the court needs to consider "the importance of the evidence to either party's theory of the case, noting evidence relating to a central issue - as opposed to a tangential one - will likely have a greater effect on the verdict." State v Basua, 280 Or App 339, 345, 380 P3d 1196 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Stull
"In general, in presenting closing arguments to the jury, counsel has 'a large degree of freedom' to comment on the evidence submitted and urge the jury to draw any [and] all legitimate inferences from that evidence," but that freedom does not permit "making statements of facts outside the range of evidence." Cler v. Providence Health System-Oregon, 349 Or 481, 487-88 (quoting Huber v. Miller, 41 Or 103, 115, 68 P 400 (1902)).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Weaver
Under ORAP 5.45(4)(a), "each assignment of error must demonstrate that the question or issue presented by the assignment of error timely and properly was raised and preserved in the lower court."
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Western States Petroleum Assn. v. EQC
Under ORS 468A.266(5), in order to adopt a rule, the EQC must evaluate a handful of factors ranging from technical studies to feasibility analysis, and the rule will be invalid under ORS 183.400(4)(c) if it was adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
King v. Warner Pacific College
Under ORS 659A.006(4), a religious organization or institution may prefer an employee or an applicant of one religious sect over another if the employment is closely related with the primary purpose of the institution and is not connected with a commercial or business activity.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Jacobson
Under the Oregon Constitution, Article I, section 11, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to public trial by an impartial jury in the county in which the offense shall have been committed; to be heard by himself and counsel."
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Campbell
Under ORS 137.106(1)(a), "the court shall enter a judgment or supplemental judgment requiring that the defendant pay the victim restitution in a specific amount that equals the full amount of the victim's economic damages as determined by the court" upon a showing of evidence; and under ORS 31.710(2)(a), "economic damages" are the "objectively verifiable monetary losses including but not limited to reasonable charges necessarily incurred for medical, hospital, nursing and rehabilitative services and other health care services[.]"
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Bighorn Logging Corp. v. Truck Ins. Exchange
When a word or phrase is not defined in an insurance policy, the court will seek out plausible interpretations; should multiple plausible interpretations exist, "any reasonable doubt as to the meaning of the word or phrase will be resolved in favor of the insured and against the insurer." Hunters Ridge Condo. Assn. v. Sherwood Crossing, 285 Or App 416, 423, 395 P3d 892 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Rondeau
"Police conduct that is 'beyond that reasonably related to the traffic violation *** must be justified on some basis other than the traffic violation.'" State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610, 623, 227 P3d 695 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Morris v. Kanne
"Adverse possession depends on the intent of the occupant to claim and hold real property in opposition to all the world." Sertic v. Roberts, 171 Or 121, 134, 136 P2d 248 (1943).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Lyness
"In the absence of legally sufficient evidence that the defendant has the ability to pay the amount imposed, it is plain error for a trial court to require a defendant to pay court-appointed attorney fees." State v. Mendoza, 286 Or App 548, 549, 401 P3d 288 (2017) (citing State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 716, 320 P3d 670 (2014)).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Moles
Under ORAP 5.45(1), a claim of error will only be considered if it was preserved in the lower court and is assigned in the opening brief, allowing for appellate discretion for plain error.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Simon
"[The Court] review[s] only to determine if the record and all reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision, supports the court's findings." See generally Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485, 487, 443 P2d 621 (1968) (stating general standard)."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. M. F.
"To endanger the child's welfare, the condition or circumstances must create a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child and there must be a reasonable likelihood that the threat will be realized. The focus must be on the child's current conditions and circumstances and not on some point in the past." Dept. of Human Services v. S.A.B.O., 291 Or App 88, 99, 417 P3d 555 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Pena v. Travelers Ins. Co.
The Court will ordinarily extend deference only to a plausible agency interpretation of its own rule and applies the same principles of interpretation that are used to construe statutes.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Kreis
Even in the absence of a lawful initial seizure, an order may be justified by legally sufficient officer-safety concerns. State v. Wilson, 283 Or App 823, 828-29, 390 P3d 1114, rev den, 361 Or 801 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Leach
"After a patdown, an officer may not conduct a further search unless the officer develops reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that the person poses a serious threat of harm and that a further search would lessen or eliminate that threat.'" State v. Davenport, 272 Or App 725, 731, 357 P3d 514, adh'd to as modified on recons, 275 Or App 20, 361 P3d 669 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Angle v. Board of Dentistry
The Court will give "primary weight" to the text and context of a statutory provision, but may also consider any useful legislative history to discern and effectuate the legislative intent as reflected in the words of the statute. State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Olson
The Court will analyze the nature of erroneously admitted testimony in the context of other evidence on the same issue and whether it would be duplicative, cumulative, or unhelpful to the jury. State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 33-34, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).
State v. Galloway
A trial court can order a retrial limited to the issues that caused the appellate court to reverse the conviction on the greater offense because "A defendant's 'right to trial by jury on all elements of the offenses of which [a defendant] has been convicted' is not violated in that circumstance because the state has proved to 'a jury all elements of the offenses of which he is accused' in the same case." State v. Boots, 308 Or 371, 577-79.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
SAIF v. Maldonado
The law of the case doctrine precludes relitigation of an appellate court holding after remand and on subsequent appeal but does not apply in the context of two separate administrative proceedings "because it gives preclusive effect only to the prior ruling or decision of an appellate court . . . and does not bar such rulings from being overruled in separate cases." ILWU, Local 8 v. Port of Portland, 279 Or App 157, at 164, rev den, 360 Or 422 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Heckler
In earlier cases, the Court has found that statutes that share a common function and many of the same characteristics may be considered statutory counterparts. State v. Donovan, 243 Or App 187, 256 P3d 196 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Emrys v. Farmers Ins. Co.
"In Oregon, a court will reform a written agreement if the party seeking that remedy establishes three things: (1) an antecedent agreement to which the contract can be reformed; (2) a mutual mistake or, alternatively, a unilateral mistake by one party along with inequitable conduct by the other party; and (3) the party seeking reformation was not grossly negligent." A&T siding, Inc. v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp., 358 Or 32, 42-43 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
State v. Corcilius
Under ORS 164.805(1), "a person commits the crime of offensive littering if they create an objectionable stench" by "discarding or depositing any rubbish, trash, garbage, debris or other refuse upon the land of another without permission of the owner."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Sauter and Sauter
Under ORS 107.105(1)(f), the court distinguishes between property brought into the marriage and property acquired during the marriage for purposes of division of personal property.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Berry
Under ORS 163.205(2)(b), a "'dependent person' means a person who because of either age or a physical or mental disability is dependent upon another to provide for the person's physical needs."
State v. Woodford
"As a general rule, an expert witness may not testify regarding a legal conclusion." Olson v. Coats, 78 Or App 368, 370, 717 P2d 176 (1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Hayne
While Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution afford criminal defendants a qualified right to self-representation, the United States Supreme Court has held that a trial court may "insist upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial. . . but who still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves." Indiana v. Edwards, 554 US 164, 178, 128 S Ct 2379, 171 L Ed 2d 345 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. McKnight
Under ORS 164.215, "A person commits the crime of first-degree burglary if 'the person enters or remains unlawfully in a building with the intent to commit a crime therein.'"
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Balzer v. Moore
Under ORS 471.565, a person licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission is not liable for damages caused by intoxicated patrons unless the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the licensee provided alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron, and (2) the plaintiff did not substantially contribute to the intoxication by providing, encouraging, or facilitating the consumption of alcoholic beverages.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Sitton v. Dept. of Transportation
Under ORS 30.265(6)(a), public bodies, their officers, employees, and agents "acting within the scope of their employment or duties are immune from liability" for any injury or death claim covered by any workers' compensation law.
Area(s) of Law:- Qualified Immunity
State v. Golden
A trial court error is "plain" if "(1) the error is one of law, (2) the error is obvious, not reasonably in dispute, and (3) the error appears on the face of the record, so that we need not go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error are irrefutable." State v. Zolotoff, 275 Or App 384, 397, 365 P3d 131 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Richen
Based on York v. Bailey, 159 Or App 341, 347-48, 976 P2d 1181, rev den, 329 Or 287 (1999), modification of a judgment on a basis of evidentiary error requires affirmatively established prejudice in the record; without that record, no reversal will occur.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Nevins v. Board of Parole
Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), the court may set aside or remand orders that are not supported by substantial evidence in the record, based on a reasonable person standard.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Balabon
"Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, warrantless seizures are per se unreasonable unless they fall within 'one of the few "specifically established and well-delineated exceptions" to the warrant requirement.'"
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Mayo
"To admit evidence under OEC 412, a trial court must conduct a three-step inquiry;" first, determine if the evidence concerns past sexual behavior of the victims, second, determine whether the evidence is offered in the form of an opinion or reputation evidence, and third, balance the probative value with the prejudicial effects.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Lizama v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Ins. Co.
Under ORS 742.061(1), "a plaintiff in an action on an insurance policy is generally entitled to attorney fees if 'the plaintiff's recovery exceeds the amount of any tender made by the defendant,'" unless the insurer has accepted coverage in a small subset of situations or if the insurer has consented to submit the case to binding arbitration.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Merchants Paper Co. v. Newton
"Under the discovery rule, a legal malpractice claim accrues when a person knows or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should know, that there is a substantial possibility that the person has an actionable injury. Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or 270, 278, 232 P3d 980 (2011)."
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Bastow
ORS 136.425(2) states that "[A] confession alone is not sufficient to warrant the conviction of the defendant without some other proof that the crime has been committed." However, because a "probation revocation hearing occurs after convictions that result from criminal proceedings" ORS 136.425(2) is not applicable.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Brim v. Lewis
Under ORCP 67 F, after an action is commenced, a judgment may be given upon stipulation that may be in writing signed by the parties, their attorneys, or their authorized representatives; or otherwise assented to by all parties in open court.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Snook v. Swan
Under ORS 31.150, when a party files a special motion to strike, a two-step burden-shifting process is applied. First, the filing party must have met its burden of showing that the claim arises out of statements or conduct protected by ORS 31.150(2), and second, the party bringing the claim must establish that there is a probability that they will prevail on the claim by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie case.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Hoag Living Trust v. Hoag
"A party who relies on partial performance must show, '[1] the existence of an agreement that is clear and unambiguous in its terms, [2] that the partial performance unequivocally and exclusively refers to the agreement, and [3] that there are equitable grounds for enforcing the agreement.' Burgdorf v. Weston, 259 Or App 755, 758, 316 P3d 303 (2013)."
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
Coos County Airport Dist. v. Special Districts Ins.
If contract term interpretations are ambiguous and without plain meaning when examined in context of the policy as a whole, the Court will construe the remaining plausible interpretations against the drafter and in favor of the insured. Hoffman Construction Co. v. Fred S. James & Co., 313 Or 464, 469, 836 P2d 703 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. DeBoard
Under ORS 656.266(2)(a), the burden of proving that an injury or occupational disease is on the worker, and once a worker establishes an otherwise compensable injury, the employer bears the burden of proof to establish that the injury is not a major contributing cause of the disability.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Pucket
Oregon distinguishes between laws that focus on the content of speech or writing and laws that focus on the pursuit or accomplishment of forbidden results. State v. Plowman, 314 Or 157, 164, 838 P2d 558 (1992), cert den, 508 US 974 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Miller
Under the holding of State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 217 P3d 659 (2009), a punishment may be declared unconstitutional if it is so disproportionate when compared to the offense so as to "shock the moral sense" of reasonable people.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Bora Architects/Allgood v. Tillamook
Under ORS 215.427(4), the deadline will always run from the date that the application was submitted, regardless of action or inaction on the part of the county.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Robles v. SAIF
Under ORS 183.482(a) and (c), a court may affirm, reverse, or remand orders if it finds that the agency erroneously interpreted the provision, or set aside orders that do not have substantial evidence supporting the finding of fact.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Meyers v. SAIF
Under ORS 656.005(30), a "'worker' means any person who engages to furnish services for a remuneration, subject to the direction and control of an employer[.]"
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Molette v. Nooth
Under ORS 137.719, adjudications that are not defined as sentences do not count as sentences for the purposes of imposing life imprisonment on defendants with at least two prior felony sentences for sex crimes.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v S. F.
Under ORS 426.130(1)(a), "in order to justify an involuntary commitment, the state must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the individual is 'a person with mental illness.'"
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Kiltow v. SAIF
"A worker cannot be both ‘permanently’ and ‘temporarily’ disabled at the same time.” Gwynn v. SAIF, 304 Or 345, 351, 745 P2d 775 (1987), and SAIF v. Grover, 152 Or App 476, 480, 954 P2d 820 (1998),
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. G. V. L.
Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), juvenile courts have jurisdiction over children “[w]hose condition or circumstances are such as to endanger the welfare of the child.”
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Truong v. Premo
When a trial court’s exercise of discretion “flows from a mistaken legal premise, its decision may be legally impermissible because it was guided by the wrong substantive standard.” Lopez v. Nooth, 287 Or App 731, 734, 403 P3d 484 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Johnson v SAIF
Under OAR 436-035-0013, the compensation award for an injury may be reduced when a portion of the injury is attributable to a "legally cognizable preexisting condition" that has been accepted and denied by the insurer.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Jones v. Four Corners Rod and Gun Club
Under ORS 20.077, a court must determine the prevailing party on a claim-by-claim basis. The prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees under ORS 653.055(4) or ORS 652.200(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
State v. Martin
Trial courts may refuse to give special jury instructions that "destroy the neutral form that instructions should have." St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Baughman, 61 Or App 534, 538, 657 P2d 1254, rev den, 295 Or 259 (1983).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Ciecko v. DLCD
Under ORS 196.471(3), the Land Conservation and Development Commission must return recommended Territorial Sea Plan amendments to the Ocean Policy Advisory Council, allowing 155 days for revision of the proposed amendments.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Meiser
Under ORS 174.120(3), when the last day by which a court may perform an act is a legal holiday, the act must be performed "on the next day that the court is open for the purpose of filing pleadings and other documents."
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
DLCD v. City of Klamath Falls
Under OAR 660-015-0000(14), change to an Urban Growth Boundary must be based on both (1) a need to accommodate 20-year long range population forecasts, and (2) a need for housing, employment opportunities, livability or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks, or open spaces.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use