Prabhpreet Sangha

Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)

State v. Mazzola

Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) are searches for which a warrant generally is required under the Oregon Constitution Article I, section 9; an exception to the warrant requirement is a search conducted with probable cause or under exigent circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Oregon Court of Appeals (27 summaries)

State v. Johnson

A criminal defendant may appeal a judgment of conviction based on the sentence for a felony on showing of claim of error if probation was revoked.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Freih

Under ORS 161.200, in order for a defendant to raise the affirmative defense of "choice-of-evils" against a charge of failure to appear in court, the defendant must be under threat of imminent psychological harm on the date (or shortly after) the defendant failed to appear.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Logston

A defendant who immediately objects to the prosecutor’s argument, but whose objection is overruled, need not engage in futile efforts to obtain a curative instruction or a mistrial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Beck

A trial court does not err when it denies a motion to suppress if the then admitted statements are harmless.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Islam

Awarding restitution for stolen property is adequate when the theft occurs in retail space.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Real v. Nooth

In determining whether a sentence is disproportionate under Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution, the Court considers three factors: a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and the criminal history of defendant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Gibson

Probable cause has two aspects: the officer must subjectively believe that a crime has been committed, and that belief must be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The facts that determine whether there is objective probable cause are the facts known by the arresting officer at the time of the arrest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Dept. of Human Services v. E. M.

Juvenile court has the authority to postpone a hearing or make other procedural accommodations to protect the parent’s right to participate when a parent is unable to or prevented from personally appearing due to parent’s incarceration, physical condition, mental illness, or need to be in another courthouse at the same time as the parent’s scheduled hearing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Evans

Burglary is accomplished if a person enters or remains unlawfully, in a dwelling, with the intent to commit a crime therein.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

DCBS v. Muliro

An injured worker seeking supplemental disability has the burden of satisfying the requirements of ORS 656.210(2)(b); when the worker does not provide the necessary information, the entity responsible for processing the claim is not obligated to independently seek that information out.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

State v. James

It must be shown that Defendant controlled the supply of alcohol that minors consumed to sustain a conviction for furnishing alcohol to minors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Parker

The guiding principle in determining whether an encounter is a constitutionally significant seizure is whether the officer had manifested a “show of authority” that intentionally and significantly restricts an individuals’ liberty.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Truong

The party offering the scientific evidence at issue has the burden of establishing that it is scientifically valid.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Purrier

The jury’s task is to weigh evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses and the reliability of their testimony, and to resolve conflicts in the evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Davis

Crimes which occur at different times do not merge if there has been the opportunity to renounce criminal intent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Romayor v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards

Retroactive application of a rule is not automatically impermissible, and the question is one of intent of the agency.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Thompson

Whether a seizure has occurred is a fact specific inquiry into the totality of the circumstance of a particular case; the state has the burden of justifying a warrantless seizure of evidence, and that the seizure was not the fruit of an unlawful stop.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Shipe

Evidence must be legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant "knowingly" acted; there must not be too great an inferential leap.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Cline

An officer's act of directing a person to alter the person's course of travel or to otherwise direct the person's movements may often constitute a "show of authority" that effectuates a seizure, but that is not a per se rule of Oregon constitutional law; instead, the officer's directive must be examined in the context of the encounter in which it was made.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Paniagua-Montes

Under ORS 135.455, if alibi evidence is offered by a witness who is not the defendant, proper notice must be provided; if proper notice is not provided, such evidence must be excluded unless there is good cause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. George

Under ORS 811.540, the term “flee” applies to any instance where an individual knowingly avoids compliance with the requests of a pursuing officer.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dept. of Human Services v. W. A. C.

To determine whether jurisdiction over a minor is proper, the inquiry is based on “whether, under the totality of circumstance, there is a reasonable likelihood of harm to the welfare of the child.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Brown

When an incorrect legal standard is applied to a motion to dismiss in a trial court, and the correct legal standard would require findings of fact not already made, then that decision may be vacated.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Yale Holdings, LLC v. Capital One Bank

Summary judgment is only appropriate when the terms of a deed are unambiguous.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Dept. of Human Services v. J. B. V.

When DHS seeks to change a ward’s permanency plans, DHS must prove that it made reasonable efforts to effect reunification, and that the parent did not make sufficient progress to allow the child’s safe return home, despite DHS's efforts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

SAIF v. Carlos-Marcia

Diagnostic services related to discovery of the cause of complaints of pain can be reasonable and necessary expenses, even if the results of the testing reveal that the condition was unrelated to the compensable condition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Villanueva-Villanueva

In the absence of overwhelming evidence of guilt, erroneously admitted hearsay evidence that significantly reinforces the declarant's testimony at trial constitutes error requiring reversal of the defendant's conviction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence