Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)
State v. Woods
Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, “[t]o search lost property, officers need to have a good faith, subjective belief that the property is lost and that belief needs to be ‘objectively reasonable under the circumstances.’” State v. Vanburen, 262 Or App 715, 722 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Oregon Court of Appeals (24 summaries)
State v. Lipka
“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” OEC 403.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Daniels v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Co.
To invoke the statutory safe harbor protection under ORS 742.061(3) an insurer must have, in writing, “accepted coverage and the only issues are the liability of the underinsured motorist and the damages due the insured.” Additionally, the insurer must have "consented to submit the case to binding arbitration." ORS 742.061(3)(a)-(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Pilling v. Travelers Ins. Co.
“[ . . . ] the association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit creates a partnership, whether or not the person intended to create a partnership.” ORS 67.055.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Bales
“A person who has received formal training in prehospital and emergency care, and is licensed to attend any person who is ill or injured or who has a disability. Police officers, firefighters, funeral home employees and other persons serving in a dual capacity one of which meets the definition of ‘emergency medical services provider’ are ‘emergency medical services providers’ within the meaning of this chapter.” ORS 682.025(4).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Schwartz and Battini
“A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this is the more appropriate forum under ORS 109.761 or 109.764 and: (B) substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships;” ORS 109.741(1)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Htaike v. Sein
The Court of Appeals held the trial court deprived Defendants an opportunity to be heard by not allowing them to present legal or factual arguments surrounding the underlying claim when it entered a corrected judgment after remand.
Mandes v. Liberty Mutual Holdings
"Under the personal comfort doctrine, a worker remains in the course and scope of employment if he or she engages in an activity that is not his or her appointed work but which is 'personal comfort' activity that bears a sufficient connection to his or her employment.” U.S. Bank v. Pohrman, 272 Or App 31, 46, 354 P3d 722, rev den, 358 Or 70 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Shields
“A person is guilty except for insanity if, as a result of mental disease or defect at the time of engaging in criminal conduct, the person lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or to conform the conduct to the requirements of law.” ORS 161.295.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Cannon v. Dept. of Justice
Until a person successfully challenges a conviction, he is not “harmed in a legally cognizable way” by a defense counsel’s malpractice. Stevens v. Bispham, 316 Or 221, 230-31, 851 P2d 556 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Schutz v. La Costita III, Inc.
A “complete denial a previous right to claim under the common law by ORS 471.565(1) violated the remedy clause,” Oregon Constitution. Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or 168, 219 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Johnson
Under OEC 403, "relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger or unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. M.M.A.
In order to prove criminal liability under ORS 163.165(1)(e), the state must prove the defendant either directly inflicted physical injury, or “engaged in conduct so extensively intertwined with infliction of the injury that such conduct can be found to have produced the injury.” State v. Pine, 336 Or 194, 201, 82, P3d 130 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. M.M.
The purpose of ORS 426.100(1) is to provide a person facing a civil commitment the benefits of a full and fair hearing. Due to the nature of a civil commitment, a court’s failure to provide a person with information in accordance with ORS 426.100(1) is subject to plain error review. State v. M. L. R., 256 Or App 566, 569, 303 P3d 954 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Owen v. Taylor
In order to establish that trial counsel rendered inadequate assistance of counsel, a petitioner must prove two elements: (1) that counsel “failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment,” and (2) that “petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequacy.” Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Miller
Under OEC 803(5), "the making of a record for the purposes of OEC 803(5) requires the witness’s knowledge that the statement is being memorialized in order to ensure that the statement carries greater trustworthiness than any other hearsay statement.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Najar
Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, a seizure occurs “(a) if a law enforcement officer intentionally and significantly restricts, interferes with, or otherwise deprives an individual of that individual’s liberty or freedom of movement; or (b) if a reasonable person under the totality of the circumstances would believe that (a) above has occurred.” State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297, 316, 244 P3d 360 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Dominguez and Fields
Under OEC 611(1), a trial court, may “exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witness and presenting evidence so as to make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, avoid needless consumption of time and protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
City of Lebanon v. Milburn
Under ORS 133.643(a), “an individual from whose person, property or premises things have been seized may move the appropriate court to return things seized to the person or premises from which they were seized.”
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Petrillo v. PERB
Under ORS 239.715(2), "Any person who receives a payment from the Public Employees Retirement Fund and who is not entitled to receive that payment, including a member of the system who receives an overpayment, holds the improperly made payment in trust subject to the board’s recovery of that payment under this section or by a civil action or other proceeding.”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Anderson v. Background Check Unit 286 Or App 27 (2017)
Under OAR 407-007-00330(7)(a): “The [subject individual] must participate in the administrative review. Participation may include, but is not limited to, providing additional information or additional documents requested by the BCU with a specified amount of time.”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Jones
Under OEC 404(3) evidence of prior acts that bear on a person’s character is permissible, if the evidence is offered for a non-character purpose, and a theory of relevance for the nonpropensity purposes of 404(3) are met.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Eamon Enterprises, LLC v. Kilcup
Under ORS 90.396, an act that is “outrageous in the extreme” is similar in degree to an act that would (1) put another at risk of substantial personal injury; (2) an act that substantially damages the landlord’s premises; or (3) any materially fraudulent information on rental agreement.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
U.S. Bank National Association v. Vettrus
Under ORCP 47(c), the moving party “bears the burden of persuasion at trial as well as “the burden of producing evidence to establish that [claim] as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage.” Wieck v. Hostetter, 274 Or App 457, 470 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Wilson
A person whose intends to preserve a constitutionally protected privacy interest, must manifest an intention to exclude the public by erecting barriers to entry, using fences or by posting signs. State v. Dixson/Digby, 307 Or 195, 211-12, 766 P2d 1015 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law