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 (6 summaries)

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