Taylor VanScoy

Oregon Supreme Court (1 summary)

State v. Harris

The confrontation clause of Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution requires that the State exhaust all “reasonably available means for producing a witness." A witness's failure to appear after delivery of a valid subpoena is insufficient, without more, to declare unavailability of a witness. However, a defendant cannot appeal the result of an error he caused. State v. Koennicke, 274 Or 169, 173-74 (1976); Valdin v. Holteen and Nordstrom, 199 Or 134, 152 (1953).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (17 summaries)

State v. Mendoza-Sanchez

Excluding expert testimony that relates to facts presented that would raise doubt to the central issue in the case is not harmless error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Dixon v. Board of Nursing

The standard of proof set in ORS 183.450(5) is synonymous with the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, the standard of proof in agency proceedings is the preponderance of the evidence standard.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Sawyer

For a trial court to show that it complied with Mayfield's OEC 403 balancing requirements, it must "(1) demonstrate that the court consciously conducted the required balancing and (2) allow for meaningful review of that balancing." Ydrogo, 289 Or App 488, 492 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

SAIF v. Carlos-Macias

Diagnostic services necessary to determine the cause or extent of an already-accepted injury or condition are compensable as defined in ORS chapter 656. SAIF v. Carlos-Macias,262 Or App 629, 631, 325 P3d 827 (2014)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. J.R.B.

In conducting a civil commitment hearing, the trial court, to comply with its obligation under ORS 426.100(1)(c), must advise the allegedly mentally ill person of all five possible results of the proceedings listed under ORS 426.130, or conduct an examination on the record to determine whether a valid waiver of the right to be advised has been knowingly and voluntarily made. State v. M.T., 244 Or App 299 (2011). See ORS 426.130.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Van Osdol

A valid warrant to search a residence for evidence of "frequenting" in violation of ORS 167.222 has to establish probable cause that (1) someone with legal authority over the residence actually knew of the sale of drugs at the residence and authorized or consented to the use of the house to facilitate those sales, (2) the substantial purpose of the residence was the commercial sale or use of illegal drugs, and (3) evidence of the crime would be found. Lemery v. Leonard, 99 Or 670, 678, 196 P 376 (1921)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Eugene Water & Electric Board v. Miller

The use of an easement is not necessarily limited to uses stated in the easement. Courts are to discern the nature and scope of the easement’s purpose and to give effect to that purpose in a practical manner. Bernards et ux v. Link and Haynes, 199 Or 579, 592-93, on reh’g, 199 Or 579, 263 P2d 794.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

U.S. Bank National Assn. v. McCoy

The business records exception to hearsay under OEC 803(6) does not permit "a party to substitute testimony regarding the contents of records for the records themselves."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Hedgpeth

Common knowledge that a person's blood alcohol content dissipates over time is, without additional evidence, is insufficient to prove that at a specific point in time, a person's alcohol level was above, below, or the same as it was later recorded to be. State v. Miller, 289 Or App 353, 359, P3d (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence
  • , Criminal Law

Klein v. BOLI

Content neutral regulations that have incidental effects on expression are permissible regulations of public accommodation services rather than regulations directed at expression or regulations of speech. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 US 47, 62, 126 S Ct 1297 (2006). If cake-making involves both expressive and non-expressive components and Oregon’s interest in enforcing the statute is unrelated to the content of the expressive components, then the government’s action is subject to intermediate scrutiny. United States v. O’Brien, 391 US 367, 376 (1968).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Blackstone

An officer must have reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is about to commit an unrelated crime based on “specific and articulable facts” that are “objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances” in order to extend a lawful traffic stop. State v. Reich, 287 Or. App 292, 298 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Nathan v. Dept. of Human Services

In analyzing the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, a court asks whether the facts allege a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 US 223, 232 (2009).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Qualified Immunity

Dischinger Orthodontics v. Regence BlueCross BlueShield

When a claim for declaratory judgment under ORS 28.020 is based on the same underlying facts as a claim barred by ORS 65.084(1), the standing limitations of the more specific statute prevail under ORS 174.020(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

State v. Ortiz-Saldana

A conviction for witness tampering must be based on evidence that a defendant intended to induce a person “not to testify or to testify falsely” in a hypothetical future criminal proceeding. The intent must be understood from Defendant’s mindset when making the threats. State v. Bailey, 346 Or 551 (2009).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Skille v. Martinez

Under ORS 30.275(2)(b), the 180-day notice requirement begins to run when a plaintiff knew or should have known of the tortious nature of the conduct. Whether a plaintiff knew or should have known is a question of fact for the jury to determine how a reasonable person in the circumstances of the plaintiff would have acted in the same or similar situation. Doe v. Lake Oswego School District, 353 Or 321, 334-35 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. MacDonald

Per ORS 163.705(1), it is a crime to "intentionally or recklessly [engage] in conduct prohibited by [a stalking protective order.]"

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

Murray and Murray

Under ORS 107.137(2), identifying one parent as the primary caregiver is not outcome-determinative in child custody cases and must be weighed with all relevant statutory factors to determine what custody arrangement represents the child’s best interests. Courts may consider parent work schedules, distance between parents’ homes, and the logistics of proposed parenting plans in fostering strong contacts with both parents. Miller and Miller, 269 Or App 436, 437, 345 P3d 472 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law