Priscilla Shaikh

Oregon Supreme Court (7 summaries)

FountainCourt Homeowners v. FountainCourt Develop.

St. Paul Fire v. McCormick & Baxter Creosoting established that even if property damage begins to occur before the insurance policies are in effect, the policies are “triggered” when the damage is ongoing during the policy periods.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Eugene

The public has a particularly strong interest in police department personnel investigations arising out of use of force complaints. However, a public body may separate material that is exempt from disclosure (such as personal identifying information) from material that is not exempt and make the nonexempt material available for inspection.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Yeatts v. Polygon Northwest Co.

The Oregon Employer Liability Law (ELL) imposes a greater duty of care on employers than common law negligence imposes; circumstances giving rise to ELL liability can exist without also supporting liability in negligence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Etter v. Dept. of Rev.

Under 49 USC § 40116, the term “regularly” indicates that the assigned duties must be normal, typical, or routine.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Hardin v. Popoff

Under ORS 138.510, a petitioner is required to file for post-conviction relief within two years of entry of the judgment of conviction, unless the grounds for relief could not reasonably have been raised during that period. A claim can reasonably be raised even if the underlying principle has not previously been analyzed in the petitioner's situation.

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

State v. Newcomb

An individual does not have possessory rights or search and seizure rights over an animal that is lawfully seized with probable cause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Couch Investments, LLC v. Peverieri

Under ORS 36.695 an arbitrator can order remedies that the arbitrator considers just and appropriate under the circumstances of the arbitration proceeding.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Oregon Court of Appeals (41 summaries)

Dept. of Human Services v. C.L.H

In determining whether DHS failed to make reasonable efforts to make reunification possible, the juvenile court must engage in a cost-benefit analysis, considering both the burdens on the state in providing that service and the benefit that might reasonably be expected to flow from that service. DHS may not withhold a potentially beneficial service to an incarcerated parent simply because, in DHS’s estimation, reunification with the child is ultimately unlikely even if the parent successfully engages in the services and programs that DHS provides.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Lien/Wilverding

State v. Howard/Dawson, 204 Or App 438 (2006) established that defendants have no possessory interest after the sanitation company picks up the garbage can, but defendants do have a possessory interest before the sanitation company collects the defendants’ garbage can. It does not conclude that a slight deviation from an ordinary collection routine is constitutionally significant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Herrington

An error is subject to review, regardless of whether it was preserved, if it is a plain error; an error is not plain if it is necessary to choose between competing inferences to find it. When the record does not contain a written jury waiver, competing inferences do not exist.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Stewart

ORS 475.900(2)(a) applies when a defendant commits unlawful delivery with the purpose of obtaining something of value in return, even if the defendant has not yet received payment or a promise of payment at the time he commits the delivery.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. McCright

(1) Under State v. Bates a trial court judge’s decision to maintain restraints on a defendant throughout trial without justification is error. The error is harmless if the proceeding is without a jury, which reduces the likelihood of prejudice, and there is no showing that the use of restraints substantially affects the trial court’s fact finding.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Dawson

Under State v. Dennis, an officer conducting a traffic stop is free to question a motorist about matters unrelated to that stop, but not as an alternative to going forward with the next step in processing the traffic stop.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Criswell

If a trial judge believes that an offender should receive a more severe sentence than the one originally imposed, the judge’s reasoning must appear on the record. Those reasons must be based on identified facts of which the first sentencing judge was unaware, and must not be a product of vindictiveness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Hall

State v. Reed and Ailes v. Portland Meadows found that when deciding whether to exercise discretion to correct plain error, a court may consider the competing interests of the parties, the ends of justice in a particular case and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another way.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Big River Construction, Inc. v. City of Tillamook

An expert’s estimate can be of sufficient competence and certainty to base damages on if, from the proximate estimate, a satisfactory conclusion can be reached.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

State v. Delfino

State v. Krause established that when a search incident to arrest is conducted for the purpose of discovering evidence of the crime of arrest, the search comports with Article I, section 9, even if a defendant no longer has control over the area searched, as long as the evidence reasonably could be found in that area and the search is otherwise reasonable in time, scope, and intensity. If the search in this case occurred immediately after the officer developed probable cause for a Defendant’s arrest, and Defendant had exited the van only shortly before that occurred, the search was reasonable in time, scope, and intensity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Sheldon v. US Bank

In a workers' compensation claim, the claimant is only required to adequately explain why idiopathic factors were not the cause of the injury, not to disprove every other possible cause of the injuries.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Purdy v. Deere and Company

Under the standard of Estate of Michelle Schwarz v. Philip Morris, when an instruction is necessary to inform the jury of the parameters that it must apply in considering evidence, an instruction that does not completely and accurately describe those parameters is erroneous and objectionable, even if the omitted portion of those parameters would benefit the opposing party.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Webber

Probable cause exists only if the affidavit sets forth facts that create a nexus between the place to be searched and the objects to be found. State v. Goodman established that facts derived from an officer’s training and experience may contribute the necessary factual nexus in a determination of probable cause, but it does not, in all instances, mean that an officer’s mechanical invocation of training and experience is sufficient to obtain a warrant to search a given location. There must be objective facts derived from other sources.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Krause

State v. Washington established that even if the defendant is removed from the area in which an officer believes that evidence is located, then a warrantless search incident to arrest to discover evidence of the crime of arrest is justified if the driver had control of the car immediately before the arrest and the search followed closely, making the search of the car incident to the driver’s arrest reasonable in time and scope.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Hayward v. Premo

Under ORS 138.525, dismissing a meritless petition is not appealable and an untimely petition must allege facts that, if supported by evidence, would establish that the grounds for relief could not reasonably have been raised timely.

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

State v. Christy

State v. Pumphrey provides that a court may award restitution for expenses incurred by a victim in implementing security measures in response to a defendant’s crimes, if there is evidence sufficient to support a finding that Defendant’s criminal activities were a “but for” cause of the expenses that the victim incurred.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

State v. Hoard

State v. Hill established that the circumstances of a dangerous weapon’s use, as mentioned in ORS 161.015(1), rather than design features, convert an object into a dangerous weapon. Under ORS 166.275, if there is evidence from which a jury could infer that an object was not yet a weapon, the jury could consider an attempt charge.

Clackamas County Oregon v. Clackamas River Water

Under ORS 258.046, an election contest proceeding should have a prevailing party, even if a claim does not exist, and the prevailing party should be entitled to a mandatory fee award.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Gray

Under ORS 137.540, probation may be revoked if an individual fails to abide by all general and special conditions of probation and the court is not required to prove that it was a willful failure.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Heroff v. Coursey

State v. Parker established that it is improper for counsel to interject personal appraisal of a witness’s credibility in a way, which would suggest to the jury that the appraisal is based upon counsel’s own knowledge of facts not introduced into evidence.

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

Johnson and Price

Under ORS 107.105, courts are not authorized to award property or attorneys fees as spousal support. In addition, when a court is rendering a judgment of dissolution, the court may provide for “the division or other disposition between the parties of the real or personal property as may be just and proper."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Dayton v. Jordan

Whether a sale of land creates an implied easement is determined on a case by case basis. The dispositive question is whether a reasonable purchaser would expect the easement under the circumstances in which he or she purchased the land.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. Hudson

Under OEC 103, evidentiary errors are not presumed to be prejudicial. A defendant’s conviction due to an evidentiary error cannot be reversed unless the defendant can demonstrate that he or she was actually prejudiced by that error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Goodlette v. Causey

Under ORS 138.590, a petitioner is entitled to suitable counsel, but a post-conviction relief court is not required to appoint substitute counsel simply because a petitioner disagrees with his or her attorney’s reasonable strategic choices.

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

State v. Barber

Mere acquiescence occurs when an individual is not given a reasonable opportunity to choose to consent or when he or she is informed that a search will occur regardless of whether consent is given.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Wolfgang

Under ORS 131.505(4), when a defendant is found guilty of more than one criminal offense that arises out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, the sentences imposed for the resulting convictions must be concurrent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dept. of Human Services v. S. S.

The Department of Human Services must undertake reasonable efforts to make it possible for children to safely return home based on circumstances that exist prior to a permanency hearing and that period must be sufficient in length to afford a good opportunity to assess parental progress.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Hermanson

In order to obtain evidence through a warrantless entry, the state must show how long it would take to obtain a search warrant and that the police had an objectively reasonable belief that the evidence would be lost within that specified time.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Dept. of Human Services v. A. D. D. B.

Under ORS 419B.337, for an order removing a child from the parents’ custody or continuing substitute care, a court must find that reasonable efforts were made to make it possible for the child to safely return home.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Bowman v. SAIF Corp.

Under ORS 656.386(1)(a), a reasonable fee includes all the time an attorney dedicates that relates to litigating a denial and rescission, including reasonable time spent after an insurer communicates its intention to rescind its denial and accept a claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Jacquez

Under ORS 161.635, trial courts have the authority to impose fines for Class A misdemeanors without making any findings or following any particular procedures and those decisions are not appealable unless the fine exceeds the statutory maximum.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Parnell

If the trial court does not make specific findings on all material facts, and there is evidence from which such facts could be decided in more than one way, the Court will presume that the facts were decided in a manner consistent with the trial court’s ultimate findings.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Jones v. Randle

Judicial estoppel precludes someone for asserting an ownership interest in property that was undisclosed during previous bankruptcy proceedings if that person derived a benefit from not disclosing their ownership interest before.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Sierra

Under ORS 138.222, if a case involves multiple counts of which at least one is a felony and the appellate court reverses the judgment of conviction on any count and affirms other counts, the appellate court must remand the case to the trial court for resentencing on the affirmed count or counts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Larisa's Home Care, LLC v. Nichols-Shields

To determine if an injustice exists for purposes of an unjust enrichment claim, one of the following factors must be present: (1) the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of payment; (2) the defendant should reasonably have expected to pay; or (3) society’s reasonable expectations of security of person and property would be defeated by non-payment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Flight Shop, Inc. v. Leading Edge Aviation, Inc.

Under ORS 197.825, the Land Use Board of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over land use decisions despite the circuit court’s jurisdiction over enforcement actions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Keystone RV Co.-Thor Industries, Inc. v. Erickson

The Workers’ Compensation Board’s evaluation of expert witness opinions and medical evidence is unreasonable when based on a misunderstanding.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Elsea v. Liberty Mutual, Ins.

Under ORS 656.206, If a worker is so disabled that he or she cannot work, efforts to seek work would be futile. Even if efforts would be futile, to establish permanent total disability, the worker must prove that, but for the compensable injury, the worker is or would be willing to seek regular gainful employment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. E. G.

Under ORS 426.110, a trial court must appoint a qualified examiner to review the mental health report in order to conduct a proper civil commitment hearing. A qualified examiner must be certified by the Oregon Health Authority or the Psychiatric Security Review Board.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

T.W.-S. and Sullivan

Under ORCP 68, a party can object to a statement seeking attorney fees and costs by a written objection to the statement; if no objection is filed, a court may award attorney fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. T.W.

Failure to inform an allegedly mentally ill individual of the possible results of a hearing and of the individual’s right to subpoena witnesses is plain error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Land Use Board of Appeals (5 summaries)

Goldson v. Clackamas County

Under ORS 197.80(9), the deadline for filing a notice of intent to appeal is 21 days after the appealed decision becomes final.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Phillips v. City of Corvallis

ORS 197.830(3) applies only when the local government holds a hearing and fails to provide the petitioner notice of the hearing, when the petitioner is entitled to notice under state law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Rogue Advocates v. Jackson County

Under ORS 197.835(2), LUBA may exercise its discretion to grant a motion to take additional evidence, unless the party had an opportunity to present evidence during a first appeal, but failed to present it, which would make LUBA’s grant inconsistent with ORS 197.805, which states that “time is of the essence” in reaching final land use decisions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Devlin v. Linn County

Under ORS 197.015(10)(b)(A), LUBA does not have jurisdiction over a land use decision if it is made under land use standards that do not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment; determining that a property is zoned industrial does not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

J4J v. City of Jefferson

Under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B), the Land Use Board of Appeals will reverse or remand a land use decision under review based on procedural errors, only if the Board finds that the local government failed to follow procedural rules which prejudiced substantial rights of the petitioner.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use