Lauren Sharkey

Oregon Supreme Court (8 summaries)

State v. Makin

Under ORS 163.547(1)(a), leaving children in a vehicle where controlled substances are possessed with an intent to deliver them, as opposed to actually delivering them while the children were present, does not constitute child neglect in the first degree.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. City of Lake Oswego

Under ORS 197.772, a property owner may exercise its right to remove a historic designation from its property if it meets two requirements: (1) “establish that it was the owner of the property at the time that it was designated;” and (2) “establish that the designation was imposed on the property by the local government.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Conroy v. Rosenblum

The proposed ballot title for Initiative Petition 62 must be returned to the Attorney General because several aspects of the proposed change in the law are not adequately disclosed in he title.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

State v. Agee

The court amended its decision in State v. Agee, 358 Or 325 (2015) to reflect that defendant waived his first objection, which is why the court held that the trial court erred with regard to the second and third objections.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Neumann v. Liles

The relevant test for whether allegedly defamatory statements are entitled to First Amendment protection is whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the statement touching on a matter of public concern implies an assertion of objective fact.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Chapman v. Mayfield

For negligence claims, courts must consider each case on its own facts, especially in cases involving third party criminal conduct. However, alleging over-service on the part of a bar is not alone sufficient to establish foreseeability of the type of harm that actually resulted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

A&T Siding, Inc. v. Capitol Specialty Insurance Corp.

Under the equitable doctrine of reformation, mistakes of law regarding the effect of the terms of the written agreement cannot be corrected by reformation of the contract.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

In re Herman

Disbarment is an appropriate sanction for violation of RPC 8.4(a)(3) when the offending acts are intentionally dishonest and fraudulent and there are few mitigating factors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Professional Responsibility

Oregon Court of Appeals (81 summaries)

Cunio v. Premo

Under ORS 138.550, a petitioner may not revive a claim for relief on the same grounds raised in an earlier petition, even if new case law would make the argument successful.

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

Dept. of Human Services v. M. S.

The party who proposes a change in the permanency plan from reunification to adoption has the burden to prove that the child "could not be returned to [parent] within a reasonable time." Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 283 Or App 367, 394 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Woods

In order to award restitution, there must have been "(1) criminal activities, (2) [economic] damages, and (3) a causal relationship between the two." State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App 420 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Western Prop. Holdings v. Aequitas Capital Management

The duty of good faith cannot “be construed in a way that changes or inserts terms into a contract. Instead, [t]he law imposes a duty of good faith and fair dealing in contracts to facilitate performance and enforcement in a manner that is consistent with the terms of the contract.” Safeco Ins. Co. v. Masood, 264 Or App 173, 178 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

State v. Valdez

When the Court relies on misunderstandings of facts in deciding a case, the Court may otherwise adhere to its previous ruling if additional facts support its ultimate holding.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Hooton, Wold & Okrent, LLP v. Employment Dept.

Under ORS 657.471(9), simultaneous employment is not required and the reason for eligibility is not limited to the period of time immediately preceding the application for benefits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

King v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

When the Parole Board making findings not supported by sufficient evidence, the decision must be remanded for reconsideration absent the erroneous factual findings.

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

Bredberg v. Verble

Trial courts may not dismiss a case for want of prosecution when the case has been actively litigated and is proceeding through the stages of litigation, even if the process is occurring slowly.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Rowlett v. Fagan

Forensic accountants may present evidence of business valuation when their methods are confined to their expertise.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Sercus

Under ORS 135.335, a misdemeanor conviction and restitution order is appealable only with a "colorable showing that the disposition exceeds the maximum allowable by law."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Berndt

Under ORS 164.215(1), a defendant does not trespass on property he/she otherwise has permission to enter just because his/her activity is outside the general scope of the license to be on the property.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Holloway

Under ORS 166.720(6), when indicting a defendant on racketeering charges, the State must plead the "acts constituting each incident of racketeering activity."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Netzler

Under ORS 138.694, “the court shall grant the petition for appointment of counsel if a defendant has complied with ORS 138.964(1) and if it appears to the court that the defendant is financially unable to employ suitable counsel.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Schindler

By challenging venue under State v. Mills, a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on venue, not acquittal or dismissal of his charges.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Bishop v. Waters

Under ORS 105.475, buyers have a right to revoke an agreement for the sale of land until the sale closes. The sale often closes when the parties sign the contract, but never until the title is transferred.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

LDS Development, LLC v. City of Eugene

When cities require bonds in order to shape the development of land, the city has an option to enforce the bond but is not required to do so.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

State v. Keller

In order to establish probable cause for an arrest for possession of controlled substances, an officer must show more facts than merely presence in the proximity of a controlled substance.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Wright

As an exception to the warrant requirement, exigent circumstances "require the police to act swiftly to prevent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall a suspect's escape or the destruction of evidence."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Shriners Hospitals for Children v. Woods

A default judgment cannot be enforced in a later proceeding in the face of a motion to set aside the judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction, which would make the judgment void, regardless of how long after the default judgment the motion is made.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Henderson-Laird

Erroneously admitted hearsay evidence is not prejudicial if it is cumulative of evidence that is not otherwise objected to.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

CEVA Freight, LLC v. Employment Department

Under ORS 670.600(2), an entity is considered an independent contractor if it is (1) "free from direction and control over the means and manner of providing the services;" (2) "customarily engaged in an independently established business;" and (3) "responsible for obtaining other licenses or certificates necessary to provide the services."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Department of Human Services v. T.E.B.

A parent's admission to being incarcerated and unavailable to care for their child is sufficient for asserting jurisdiction over the child.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 8 v. Port of Portland

"Law of the case" doctrine does not preclude a new case from revisiting an issue determined in a previous case and potentially overruling the issue.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Garcia

ORS 162.247 prohibits the State from charging a defendant with interfering with a peace officer if the State has also charged the defendant with resisting arrest based on the same conduct.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Whitten

There are five factors for determining whether a traffic violation should be treated as a criminal prosecution for constitutional purposes: “(1) the type of offense; (2) the potential penalties arising from a conviction; (3) the collateral consequences arising from a conviction; (4) the ‘punitive significance’ of a conviction; and (5) whether the pretrial procedures associated with a criminal proceeding are allowed.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Long v. SAIF Corporation

A Workers' Compensation Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and reason when it is based on an expert's opinion that is supported by medical tests and opposing experts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Caro

A trial court may not impose a court fee that is not authorized under the law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

N.M.G. v. McGinnis

To establish the basis for a stalking protective order, speech-based contacts must be threats that instill a fear of imminent and serious personal violence that is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Stalking Protective Order

State v. Kindler

Forcing defense counsel to go to conduct a spontaneous evidence suppression hearing and then to go to trial within a month unfairly prejudices the defendant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Dept. of Human Services v. K. V.

Jurisdiction was warranted where the father had a history of alcohol abuse and domestic violence in situations involving the child and refused to admit the threat that mother posed to the child.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Mazziotti

“Where a defendant requests that the trial court exclude other acts evidence under OEC 403 because the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, it is error for the court to admit the other acts evidence without first conducting OEC 403 balancing.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Courville

Compelling circumstances exist when the circumstances are such that an objectively reasonable person would feel compelled to answer an officer’s questions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Zavala

In sex abuse cases, propensity evidence under OEC 404(4) must be considered in light of prejudicial effect under OEC 403.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Sanderlin

Under Article I, section 16 of the Oregon Constitution, disproportionate sentences are determined by analyzing a variety of factors, including the defendant’s diminished capacity. Consideration of medical history suggesting diminished capacity is appropriate in sentencing decisions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

TriMet v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local

The Oregon Public Meetings Law applies to governing bodies that do not require a quorum to conduct business when that governing body “meets” to make decisions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Windorf v. Malco

A statute of limitations defense must be raised in a responsive pleading or in a motion before filing the pleading or the defense is waived by the party attempting to assert it.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Sproule v. Coursey

A defendant failed to prove inadequate assistance of counsel after being restrained during trial because he did not prove that the restraint, not visible to the jury, affected the outcome of his trial.

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

Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County

Under ORS 215.283(2)(c), “private parks” means space for low-intensity outdoor recreation and not space intended exclusively for private events that are commercial activity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Dept. of Human Services v. A.W.

To support the court taking jurisdiction over a child, DHS must present evidence that the child’s condition or circumstances expose the child to a current threat of serious loss or injury that is likely to be realized.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Barnes

The relevant analysis for alleged violations of the right to a speedy trial involves two steps: (1) determine the total period of delay and calculate the delay that is attributable to the state or the delay the defendant did not request or to which he did not consent; then (2) if the delay is longer than ordinarily would be expected, determine whether the delay is reasonable by examining all the attendant circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Foust v. Nooth

In order to state a claim for habeas corpus relief, the petitioner must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate the two elements for habeas corpus and not just legal conclusions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

State v. Gaines

When multiple theories of criminal liability are presented by the state, the trial court must give a jury concurrence instruction, requiring at least 10 jurors to agree on the theory of liability before a defendant can be convicted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Gallo

Under ORS 137.540(2), special conditions of probation are allowed, but cannot be more restrictive than necessary to achieve the goals of probation. A ban on the internet is reasonable for a defendant convicted of sexual abuse after posing as a teenager on the internet and luring an underage girl to a park where he sexually abused her.

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

State v. Jones

Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, discovery of an outstanding warrant does not cure an unlawful police stop. Courts must consider three factors to determine whether the evidence obtained from the unlawful stop was sufficiently attenuated from the stop: “(1) the temporal proximity between unlawful police conduct and the discovery of the challenged evidence; (2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (3) particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Taylor

The Confrontation Clause of Article I, section 11, requires the court to allow a defendant to cross-examine a complaining witness about past accusations: (1) when the witness has recanted the accusations; (2) when the defendant demonstrates that those accusations were false; or (3) there is some evidence that the victim has made prior accusations that were false, unless the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice, confusion, embarrassment or delay. “A trial court has authority to preclude [cross-examination based on the third category] when it reasonably determines that exploration of the previous incident would essentially require an unhelpful trial within a trial.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Nacoste v. Halton Co.

ORS 656.273 does not apply to consequential conditions because those conditions are new medical conditions and distinct from the underlying condition.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Dept. of Human Services v. M.L.S./K.M.

Without discussing the facts underlying the appeal, the Court affirmed the termination of Mother and Father’s parental rights based on ORS 419B.504, by reason of conduct or condition seriously detrimental to the child.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Perez

When a defendant invites an error, such as by agreeing to it before the court has made its final decision, they lose the right to challenge that error on appeal through plain error review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Skaggs

Under ORS 138.222(5)(b), when an appellate court considers a case with multiple counts including at least one felony, if it reverses the judgment of any count and affirms the others, the case must be remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. R.E.G.

Under ORS 427.290, a complete diagnostic report, including a diagnostic evaluation, is required before a civil commitment hearing can continue against an individual.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Simonsen

When considering an assignment of error under the plain error doctrine, if case law and the statute do not clearly provide an certain outcome, the trial court will not be held to have committed plain error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Wasyluk

A trial court may exercise its discretion when responding to improper opinion statements by an attorney. When the improper statements are accidental and immediately addressed, it is not an abuse of discretion to issue a cautionary instruction instead of granting a mistrial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State ex rel Rosenblum v. Johnson & Johnson

Under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, a material risk that a product has a latent defect is exactly the kind of inherent feature of a product implicated. The risk itself is a "fact" for the purposes of the UTPA, and its nondisclosure is actionable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Morgan

Under ORS 164.405(1)(b), to qualify as “another person actually present”, that person does not need to know that a crime has been committed or intend to aid a defendant in commission of that crime. Rather, the person must merely be in proximity to the victim to be an added threat.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Navaie

A trial court may rely on circumstantial evidence when determining whether evidence is hearsay or not hearsay (statement of party opponent) in an OEC 104(1) hearing. Proponents of disputed evidence does not need to show that the testifying witness personally witnessed the party making the statement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Handy v. Lane County

Under ORS 192.690, to "meet" means something less restrictive than just contemporaneous meetings. The determinative factors for whether a violation of the Public Meetings Law has occurred is whether a sufficient number of officials are involved, what they discuss, and the purpose for which they discuss it.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

State v. Sjogren

When stopping a person for trespass, an officer’s reasonable suspicion must be supported by facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize the property was not open to the public.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

L.D. v. T.J.T.

To support jurisdiction over a 19-year-old adult, it must be proven that the original bases for jurisdiction still pose a current threat of serious loss or injury that is reasonably likely to be realized.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Early v. Employment Department

When determining unemployment benefits, employees are not required to have exhausted every single option after every issue in order to show that they left voluntarily but with good cause; the standard is whether a reasonable and prudent person with the same characteristics and qualities as the employee would have considered the situation so grave that he or she had no reasonable alternative but to voluntarily leave work.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

B. R. v. Department of Human Services

If a trial court allows a parent to appear at the hearing over the telephone, they must allow the parent to participate, including testifying against DHS's case against them.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

C. P. v. Librande

Appellants have the responsibility to provide the appellate court with a sufficient record of the trial court proceeding. Absent a transcript of a trial proceeding, the appellate court may not have enough factual information to judge the appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Department of Human Services v. J. C. H.

On reconsideration, the Court removed reference to one allegation by DHS against a parent that did not support the trial court's jurisdictional decision.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Sanchez

Under Article 1, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, when an individual's right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures is violated, the court must look to the totality of circumstances in determining whether to suppress evidence collected thereafter. An individual’s consent does not automatically break the causal chain between the illegal search and seizure and evidence collected.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Alexander

For third degree assault, extreme indifference to the value of human life is satisfied by intoxicated driving plus other erratic, reckless conduct that demonstrates a state of mind where an individual cares little about the risk of death of a human being.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Private Capital Group, LLC v. Harris

Under ORS 18.954, supplemental judgments granting an additional award cannot be ordered after a sheriff’s sale of property at issue. Any additional bid over the award amount must be disbursed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Consumer Credit

State v. Logan

When objecting to character evidence, an objection must also be made regarding the limiting instruction in order to argue that issue on appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Fowler

Arguments made on appeal that were not made before the trial court cannot be the basis for the Court’s opinion unless the Court finds that the record would have developed materially the same under the new argument as under the actual argument made to the trial court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Hendricks

Under ORS 163.160, “physical injury” can be satisfied by impairment of a physical condition depending on three factors: (1) the nature of the affected bodily function or organ; (2) the degree of effect and; (3) its duration.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Blan

Under ORS 163.165, direct physical contact with the dangerous weapon is not required to satisfy the “by means of” prong of third-degree assault.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Pierce

When a trial court announces a defendant's sentence on the record and decides what programs they are eligible for under ORS 137.750, the defendant must voice an objection at that point in order to preserve a claim of error that the defendant is eligible for more programs.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Cox

After the state urged the jury to use character evidence and inflammatory facts not in evidence to find Defendant guilty of the charged crimes, the trial court’s jury instruction that the jury could not consider character traits unrelated to the charged crimes, without identifying those traits, was insufficient to cure the prejudice to Defendant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Holland

Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, police searches of peer-to-peer file sharing sites is not an illegal search and does not violate a defendant's rights.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. McHenry

To support probable cause for entering a house without a warrant, the officer must have some evidence that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed. In the context of furnishing alcohol to minors, the officer must know more than the facts that there is a party and minors have alcohol in order to have probable cause to enter a house.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Lamoreaux

Under Article 9 Section 1 of the Oregon State Constitution, the scope of a lawful, consented to search is determined by examining two factors; (1) the specific words used by the officer in requesting the search, and (2) whether a reasonable person in Defendant’s shoes would have understood that the officer intended to search for specific items. The second factor is satisfied when the officer is aware that Defendant is on probation and Defendant knows that items related to same crime as on probation for will turn up in a search.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Ray Klein, Inc. v. Wader

When a trial court dismisses a claim upon a plaintiff's request, the defendant has a right to continue with a counterclaim under ORCP 54A(2). If the trial court has the discretion to dismiss the counterclaim as well, it must create a sufficient record to reflect its discretionary decision.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Love

Under the statute governing disorderly conduct, ORS 166.025, "public" refers to something that affects "the people as an organized community" or "the people as a whole," not a "public place."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Department of Human Service v. A. B.

Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), the Court must analyze the totality of the child’s circumstances, including whether she is being cared for by someone other than the parents. DHS must prove a nexus between the parents’ risky conduct and risk of harm to the child when the child is in the care of another in order to exercise jurisdiction over the child.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

Neidhart v. Page

Defendant's petition for reconsideration was granted and resulted in the correction of a misstatement of the trial court's award. Nevertheless, Defendant's argument was rejected for being insufficiently developed for review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Landlord Tenant

Vukasin v. Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation

ORS 656.245(1)(a) allows compensation for medical services that are causally related to a compensable workplace injury. This does not include services for accepted conditions that can be shown to have been resolved or cured and occurred again later, unrelated to a workplace injury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Ibabao

Under ORS 163.225, the asportation element of second degree kidnapping is not satisfied when the victim's movements are incidental to another crime or when moving a victim between rooms in a house, because their starting and ending locations are not qualitatively different.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Martinez

Under ORS 137.123(5)(a), a trial court may impose consecutive sentences for attempted aggravated murder and the aggravating crime if it can be shown that the aggravating crime was not just an incidental crime but rather an indication of a defendant’s willingness to commit more than one criminal offense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law