Kyle Vinyard

Oregon Supreme Court (13 summaries)

Taylor v. Peters

Under the Western Interstate Corrections Compact, ORS 421.284, an inmate incarcerated outside of Oregon may bring a petition for habeas corpus in Oregon, and the director of the Department of Corrections is the appropriate defendant for those claims.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

State v. Barnthouse

Under Article I, section 9, a person has a protected possessory interest in property even though he cannot assert control over it; that is, even though the person does not have actual or constructive possession of the property.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Dept. of Rev. v. River’s Edge Investments, LLC

Under ORS 308.232, and OAR 150-308.205-(A)(3), the “especial property” rule, a property’s real market value, and final value for tax purposes, is not determined by averaging the figures of the various appraisal methods, but by comparing the approaches used and comparing their reliability in context. The weight to be accorded each method is a question of fact for the Tax Court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

State v. Vaughn-France

Under ORS 163.225(1)(b), "secretly confines the person in a place where the person is not likely to be found,” means that a defendant confines a victim in a place where it is not probable that the person will be located, either accidentally or through searching. It is a fact-specific inquiry which takes into account the circumstances of the place, the victim, and the defendant's actions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Prieto-Rubio

Under Article 1, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, a criminal defendant’s right to counsel is violated if, when questioning the defendant about an uncharged criminal offense, it is objectively, reasonably foreseeable that the questioning will lead to incriminating evidence concerning the offense for which the defendant has obtained counsel.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Nearman/Miller v. Rosenblum

Under ORS 250.035, a ballot title must contain a caption, summary, and result statements of the measure. The caption must reasonably identify the subject matter of the measure, which includes the actual effect of the measure, ORS 250.035(2)(a); the summary must provide voters with enough information to know what will happen if the measure is approved, ORS 250.035(2)(d); and the result statements must explain in simple and understandable terms the result of approving the measure. ORS 250.035(2)(b).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

Alfieri v. Solomon

Under ORS 36.110(7)(a), whether a communication is a confidential “mediation communication” under ORS 36.220 turns on three factors: (1) whether it is a “communication,” (2) its connection to a “mediation,” and (3) the identity of the recipient. Private discussions between a mediating party and his attorney that occur outside mediation proceedings, before or after a settlement agreement has been signed, are not “mediation communications,” even if they do relate to what transpires in the mediation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution

Roberts v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc.

Under the test articulated in The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., forum selection bylaws are presumptively valid absent a showing that enforcing the bylaw would be unreasonable, that the bylaw was passed as a result of fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power, or that enforcement of the bylaw would contravene public policy in jurisdiction in which the suit was brought. Under Oregon law and the standard announced in Reeves v. Chem. Industrial Co., forum selection bylaws are presumptively valid unless enforcement would be unfair or unreasonable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

State v. Agee

Under the framework the Supreme Court articulated in Hall v. Florida, the consensus in the psychological community under DSM-5 is that an individual’s ability and success in adapting and adjusting to daily life is central to the framework of determining intellectual disability, not strict adherence to standardized intellectual tests. In order to satisfy the Eighth Amendment requirements of ORS 163.150(1)(b), a defendant is allowed to present to a sentencing jury any relevant evidence of mitigating factors of the crime, including mental capacity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Hillenga v. Dept. of Revenue

Under ORS 305.265, a “deficiency” is a notice and assessment of any owed and unpaid taxes. The three-year statute of limitations under ORS 314.410(1) applies only to notices of deficiency for a particular tax year and does not bar a challenge when a claimed net operating loss is carried over to a subsequent tax year filing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Oregon State Hospital v. Butts

Under ORS 161.370, trial courts have the authority to commit a defendant to a hospital for treatment to help the defendant regain fitness to stand trial. ORS 161.370 impliedly grants trial courts authority to issue Sell orders, whether or not a doctor agrees that treatment is necessary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Clemente-Perez

Under ORS 160.250(1)(b), a person is within a vehicle if the person, or any part of the person’s body, is inside the vehicle while he possesses a concealed, readily accessible handgun. Under ORS 160.250(2)(b), a person’s residence encompasses only the building in which he lives, and does not extend to structures in the house’s curtilage.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

City of Seattle v. Dept. of Rev.

An exclusive right of use, and control of, a definable part of a taxable power facility located in Oregon is sufficient to establish a possessory interest in the facility under Oregon tax law. Under Article IV, section 18 of the Oregon Constitution, a measure that possesses the essential features of levying a tax is subject to the requirements of the Origination Clause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Oregon Court of Appeals (48 summaries)

State v. Bradley

Under ORS 138.222(5), when a judge resentences a defendant after a successful appeal, the new sentence may not be vindictive; a new sentence is presumptively vindictive if it is longer than the previous sentence. When a new sentence is not presumptive vindictive, a defendant must affirmatively prove actual vindictiveness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. S.J.R.

Under ORS 426.130, to establish that a person is a danger to herself the State must show there is a particularized and highly probable threat to the person’s safe survival, including a risk of substantial harm, in the near future. Similarly, to establish that a person is a danger to others the State must show that future violence is highly likely.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

Atkinson v. Board of Parole

Under Janowski/Fleming v. Board of Parole, an inmate is not entitled to immediate release if a release date has not been set, even if it should have been set for a date that has already passed. The only relief an inmate is entitled to is a release hearing.

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

Mann v. DeCamp

Under State v. McDonnell, a judgment from a judge who lacks authority to render the judgment is voidable, but is not automatically void if the court has subject matter jurisdiction.

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

State v. Basua

Under OEC 404(2)(a), evidence of a defendant’s character for sexual propriety is admissible if (1) the evidence concerns a “trait of character”; (2) that trait is “pertinent” to the crime charged; (3) the evidence is offered in the proper form under OEC 405, and (4) the evidence was not of specific instances of conduct.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Davis

Under ORS 138.222(2), a “presumptive sentence” that is unreviewable applies only to sentences imposed under the sentencing gridlock guidelines.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Frazer v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Oregon

On remand from the Court of Appeals, an agency has the authority to determine which issues were and were not preserved for review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. McClelland

Under ORS 137.106(1)(a) and 31.710(2)(a), in the criminal context, in order to seek restitution for economic damages, the state must prove that expenses incurred for healthcare services are reasonable. The submission of a hospital bill or doctor’s invoice, without more, is insufficient to establish “reasonableness”; some additional testimony or evidence is required.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Berg

Under ORS 151.505(3), and 161.665(4), it is plain error for a trial court to require a defendant to pay attorney fees in the absence of evidence he is able to do so. Under plain error analysis, competing inferences must be “plausible,” not speculative.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

State v. Dawson

Under ORS 809.235(1)(b), the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not bar the use of a prior uncounseled conviction to revoke a defendant’s driving privileges where the prior conviction is not used to support the defendant’s guilt or to enhance punishment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Rivas v. Board of Parole

Under Oregon’s Public Meetings Law, ORS 192.610-95, a “meeting” is a convening of a governing body for which a quorum is required to in order to make a decision on any matter, and a “convening” is a contemporaneous gathering.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. B.P.C.

Under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C), in certain circumstances if a court determines by clear and convincing evidence that a person has a mental illness and is in need of treatment, the court may order commitment of that person.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Belen

Under ORS 163.405, to convict a defendant of first-degree sodomy a jury must find that the defendant had a culpable mental state when the defendant subjected the victim to forcible compulsion; failure to instruct the jury that it must find the defendant had a culpable mental state is plain error. However, when there is no evidentiary basis from which the jury could find that the defendant, in engaging in the charged conduct, subjected the victim to forcible compulsion but did not do so knowingly, the error is harmless.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dillard v. Premo

Under ORS 138.525(3), a judgment dismissing a meritless petition is not appealable. A trial court must not expressly state that a petition is meritless; the dispositive issue whether, in fact, the trial court dismissed the petition on that ground.

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

State v. Bell

Under ORS 137.540(2), a trial court may impose special conditions of probation that are reasonably related to the crime of conviction, as long as those conditions are not more restrictive than necessary to achieve the goals of probation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Devin Oil Co., Inc. v. Morrow County

Under ORS 197.830(3), a person or party adversely affected by a land use decision that is made without a public hearing has standing to appeal that decision to LUBA. A party is adversely affected by such a decision only when the allowed land use impinges upon that party’s property or personal interests.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Miller v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

The Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision’s authority over a parolee extends for the remainder of the parolee’s sentence unless and until the Board affirmatively discharges the parolee from parole supervision.

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

Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland

Under ORS 221.515(1), in order to qualify as a privilege tax, a municipality must tax a telecommunications carrier that actually uses municipal rights-of-way in order to deliver services.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Municipal Law

State v. Williams

Under ORS 162.285(1)(a), tampering with a witness, at the time of an offender’s knowing or intended inducement of a potential witness, an offender’s statement’s must reflect, either directly or by fair inference, that the offender reasonably and specifically believes that the victim will be called to testify at an official proceeding.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Hutchings v. Amerigas Propane

Under ORS 656.005(25)(c), a worker’s preexisting condition makes him “susceptible” to injury if the condition increases the likelihood that the affected body part will be injured by some other action or process but does not actively contribute to damaging the body part.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Gutierrez v. Nooth

Under the Fifth Amendment, in order to implicate a defendant’s right to counsel while being questioned, a defendant must know he is speaking to a police officer. Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant’s right to counsel attaches only once a prosecution has commenced, and encompasses only those crimes formally charged or crimes that, while not formally charged, would be the same under the test in Blockburger v. United States, that whether two charges relate to one act is whether each statutory violation requires proof of a fact that the other does not.

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

Oatney v. Premo

Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, the state must show by a preponderance of the evidence that purportedly derivative evidence was obtained wholly from an independent source or that it would inevitably have been discovered. “Derivative evidence” is any evidence obtained by use—evidentiary or nonevidentiary—of the immunized statement.

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

Gonzales v. Taylor

Under ORS 138.640 and Datt v. Hill, a judgment in a post-conviction relief proceeding must clearly state the grounds on which the matter was decided, and whether the matter presented a state or federal question. A “clear statement” must (1) identify the claims on which a petitioner asked for relief and make a separate ruling on each claim, (2) state whether each claim for relief is procedurally or legally insufficient, and (3) make apparent the legal basis for denial of relief by identifying each element the court determines a petitioner did not meet.

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

Soderstrom v. Premo

Under ORS 138.640 and Datt v. Hill, a judgment in a post-conviction relief proceeding must clearly state the grounds on which the matter was decided. A “clear statement” must (1) identify the claims on which a petitioner asked for relief and make a separate ruling on each claim, (2) state whether each claim for relief is procedurally or legally insufficient, and (3) make apparent the legal basis for denial of relief by identifying each element the court determines a petitioner did not meet.

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

Zimmerman v. LCDC

Under ORS 197.175(1) a city must exercise zoning authority consistent with state statutes and applicable LCDC rules articulating statewide development goals. A city’s efforts to comply with LCDC goals is sufficient where it uses the best available data in creating its economic development plan.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

State v. Raymond

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, an exigent circumstance exists where an officer has probable cause to believe that alcohol and/or a controlled substance will be found in a suspect’s blood or urine.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Kelly

Under ORS 163.575, the evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that children were present at the time alleged illegal activity occurred. Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, an officer may only perform a warrantless search where probable cause exists, such that the arresting officer subjectively believes that it is more likely than not that the suspect committed a crime and if that subjective belief is objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Mulvaine

Under the new standard announced in State v. Mills, under Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, the State does not have to prove appropriate venue beyond a reasonable doubt, and a defendant must challenge venue in a pretrial motion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dept. of Human Services v. J.R.

In order for the juvenile court to assume jurisdiction over a minor, the court must find that there is current serious, nonspeculative threat of harm to the child that is reasonably likely to be realized.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Juvenile Law

State v. Austin

Under the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in Harrell/Wilson, a judge’s discretion to consent to a defendant’s Article I, section 11 right to request to waive a jury trial exits primarily to ensure that a defendant’s rights at trial are protected by ensuring the defendant is adequately represented and not improperly influenced. A judge may also consider judicial economy and speed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

AS 2014-11 5W LLC v. Kaplan Landlord, LLC

Under ORCP 47(C), summary judgment is only appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the non-moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. There are no genuine issues of material fact if, when viewing the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no reasonable juror could return a verdict for the non-moving party on the matter of the summary judgment motion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Mattheisen

Under Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution, officers must give a suspect Miranda warnings when questioning occurs under compelling circumstances. Courts look to four factors to determine whether a situation is compelling: (1) the location of the encounter; (2) the length of the encounter, (3) the amount of pressure exerted on the defendant; and (4) the defendant’s ability to terminate the encounter.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Sullivan

A trial court may not impose restitution arising out of dismissed charges when the defendant did not admit the charged criminal conduct. Under ORS 138.222(5), when a trial court errs in imposing restitution a case may only be remanded if there are permissible alternatives a trial court could adopt upon resentencing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

State v. Gordon

Under Art. I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, a traffic stop is unlawful unless the officer has probable cause to believe the driver committed a violation. Probable cause is established where the officer subjectively believes a violation occurred and if that belief is objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Horner

A reviewing court may only review an unpreserved assignment of error as one “apparent on the record” if (1) the error is of law; (2) it is not in reasonable dispute; and (3) if the error is contained in the four corners of the record such that the court need not choose between possible inferences to find it.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. McKee

When a property owner manifests and intention to exclude the public from private property outside the curtilage of a residence, a police officer may only enter the property with a warrant or under an exception to the warrant requirement; mere reasonable suspicion a crime is being committed is not enough.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Estate of Michelle Schwartz v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc.

The United States Supreme Court has identified three guideposts to determine whether a punitive damages award violates due process: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s action; (2) the disparity between the actual harm caused by the conduct and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages award and the civil and/or criminal penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. DCBS

Under Oregon common law, issue preclusion applies where an issue of ultimate fact essential to the decision arises in a subsequent proceeding that was determined by a valid and final judgment in a prior proceeding between the same parties.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Dosanjh v. Namaste Indian Restaurant, LLC

Parties in civil actions are entitled to a jury instruction on their theory of the case if the requested instruction correctly states the law, is based on the pleadings, and is supported by the evidence. An error at the trial court is only grounds for reversal if it substantially affects the rights of a party such that when the instruction is considered in the totality of the evidence and the parties’ theories of the case, there is some likelihood that the jury reached a legally erroneous result.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Rhee

Under Oregon’s merger statute, ORS 161.067(1), in order to determine whether statutory provisions require “proof of an element that the others do not,” a court should examine only the statutory elements of each offense, not the factual circumstances alleged in the indictment. When a statute contains alternative forms of a single crime, a court should look to the indictment to determine which form is charged for merger analysis.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

S. St. Helens, LLC v. City of St. Helens

Under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C), LUBA may only reverse a local government’s land use decision if the decision was based on facts that are not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record. If a reasonable person could make the disputed finding based on the entirety of the record, it is supported by substantial evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

State v. Williams

Whether an encounter between a citizen and an officer qualifies as a stop is an issue of fact, determined by the totality of the circumstances. A citizen-officer encounter constitutes a stop when the officer’s words and/or actions would cause a reasonable person to believe that he is not free to end the encounter or go about his daily affairs until the officer indicates he is free to do so or issues a citation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Taylor

Under ORS 164.205(2), a “dwelling” is any roofed structure that is mostly enclosed by walls and is regularly or intermittently inhabited by a person who resides in the building at night. Entry into such a building qualifies as entry into a dwelling for purposes of the crime of burglary under ORS 164.225.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Barker

Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, a warrantless search must be supported by probable cause, which is comprised of two components: the subjective believe of the officer that a crime was committed, and that belief must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Jaimes-Pineda

Under OEC 401, a trail court may exercise its discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the jury or complicating the trial. Appellate courts review a trial court’s decision to exclude evidence for abuse of discretion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Williams

In determining the validity of a search warrant on appeal, a court may only consider the facts alleged in the affidavit in support of the warrant. The alleged facts must establish a probability that it is more likely than not evidence will be found at the place to be searched.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Black

Under ORS 161.067, where one act satisfies more than one element of a single crime, a defendant’s single criminal act cannot be converted into multiple crimes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Maack

Under ORS 137.540(2), a trial court “may impose any special conditions of probation that are reasonably related to the crime of conviction” to facilitate the probationer’s rehabilitation or for public safety. A probation condition is valid as long as it restricts a probationer's behavior “to a permissible degree” as it reasonably relates to the purposes of probation, even if an alternate, narrower version of the condition could be imposed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law