Oregon Supreme Court (5 summaries)
Wittemyer v. City of Portland
“No poll or head tax shall be levied or collected in Oregon.” Article IX, section 1a. Based on ordinary meaning, a poll or head tax within the meaning of Article IX, section 1a of the Oregon Constitution, "is one that applies uniformly on a per capita basis, but does not take income, property, or resources into account in any way.” Wittemyer v. Portland, 361 Or. 854, 883 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
State v. Richards
A trial court is prohibited from revoking probation or imposing additional sanctions “after the probationer has completed a structured, intermediate sanction imposed by the Department of Corrections or a county community corrections agency....” ORS 137.595(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Ritz
Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, an officers’ reasonable belief that the delay caused by obtaining a warrant will lead to loss of evidence creates an exigent circumstance allowing a warrantless search. State v. Ritz, 361 Or. 781, 795 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Johnson v. Premo
Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, an attorney’s decision to pursue only one argument despite the available information presenting stronger arguments is not a reasonable tactical decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Boardman Acquisition LLC v. Dept. of Rev.
Under ORS 308A.068(3), “the date the disqualification is taken into account on the assessment and tax roll” means the date the disqualification becomes effective on the roll.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (29 summaries)
State v. Feyko
“Service of process or other legal documents upon the [protected person] is not a violation of this section if the [protected person] is served as provided in ORCP 7 or 9.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(12). “Service . . . upon a party shall be made by delivering a copy to that . . . party; by mailing it to the . . . party’s last known address[.]” Or. Rule Civ. Pro § 9B.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
State v. Flack
: “[I]n cases where a defendant has raised a defense of self-defense, a jury instruction regarding ‘an officer’s right to use force . . . in effectuating an arrest’ inserts ‘an irrelevant issue—the arresting officers’ actual state of mind—into the jury’s deliberations concerning [the defendant’s] claim of self-defense.’” State v. Oliphant, 347 Or. 175, 194, 218 P.3d 1281 (2009). “[T]he burden of proof [is] on the state to disprove the existence of that defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Oliphant, 347 Or. at 194.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Van Winkel and Van Winkel
In determining what is just and proper in the distribution of marital assets, the trial court focuses “on equitable considerations, including such matters as . . . the extent to which a party has integrated a separately acquired asset into the common financial affairs of the marital partnership through commingling.” ORS 107.105(1)(f); Kunze and Kunze, 337 Or. 122,135-36, 92 P.3d 100 (2004). “[A]cts of commingling may convert a separately acquired asset into a joint asset of the marital partnership,” Kunze, at 139.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Samuel
The state bears the burden to prove an amendment to an indictment is consistent with the grand jury’s findings. State v. Long, 320 Or 361, 370, 885 P2d 696 (1994). A variance is impermissible if it is prejudicial; a variance is prejudicial if it “require[s] a defendant to develop a different argument.” State v. Boitz¸ 236 Or App 350, 356, 236 P.3d 766 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Eugene Water and Electric Board v. PERB
“No person may become a member of the system unless he is in the service of a public employer and has completed six months’ service uninterrupted by a total of more than 30 working days during the six months’ period.” former ORS 237.011(emphasis added).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Cooksley v. Lofland
When the “plaintiff submits a verdict form from which the jury cannot tell whether the damages award includes losses subject to PIP benefits, the court must reduce the damages award by reason of the PIP benefits.” Wade v. Mahler, 167 Or. App. 350, 356, 1 P.3d 485, rev den, 331 Or. 334 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. McFerrin
“[T]he sole criterion” under OAR 213-012-0040(2) for whether a court can impose consecutive incarceration sanctions is “whether there had been multiple probation violations.” State v. Newell, 238 Or. App. 385, 395 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Riley
"Accomplice testimony is not sufficient to convict someone unless it is corroborated by other evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the offense alleged.” ORS 136.440(1). "It is not enough that the extrinsic evidence establish general criminality." State v. Foster, 221 Or. App. 108, 113, 188 P.2d 440 (2008). The extrinsic evidence must connect the defendant with the offense independent of any accomplice testimony. State v. Reynolds, 160 Or. 445, 458, 86 P.2d 314 (1939).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Chief Aircraft, Inc. v. Grill
To determine whether a defamatory statement that involves a matter of public concern is protected by the First Amendment, the court must make a determination that “a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the statement implies an assertion of objective fact.” That determination is based off a three-part test: (1) whether the general tone of the publication as a whole “negates the impression that the defendant was asserting an objective fact;” (2) whether the defendant’s own language (e.g. figurative or hyperbolic) “negates that impression;” and (3) “whether the statement at issue is susceptible of being proved true or false.” Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or 706, 718-22, 369 P3d 1117 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Dept. of Human Services v. C.E.
“When a jurisdictional judgment . . . specifically identifies a potential cause underlying a jurisdictional finding, it can be ‘fairly implied’ that that identified cause will be a referent for measuring the parent’s progress.” Dept. of Human Services v. M. M. B., 253 Or App 431, 440 rev den, 353 Or 280 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Sepulveda
“An officer confronted with safety concerns may handcuff a person without converting the stop into an arrest, but the stop is converted into an arrest if the officer continues to use force to restrain the person after the officer’s safety concerns have dissipated.” State v. Hebrard, 244 Or App 593, 598, 260 P3d 759 (2011). After an officer has stopped and handcuffed a person for officer safety, the officer needs probable cause to further detain and search the person. ORS 131.005(1); State v. Sepulveda, 288 Or App 632, 641 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Roman
When deciding whether to provide a jury with Uniform Jury Instruction 1029, the “witness-false-in-part” instruction, a court must “determine, from all the testimony, whether or not there has been sufficient evidence for the jury to decide that at least one witness consciously testified falsely.” Ireland v. Mitchell, 226 Or 286, 293. It is permissible to give the instruction based on contradictory physical evidence alone, if that evidence could cause a reasonable judge to determine that a jury could conclude, "that the defendant’s testimony did not ring true.” id. at 294.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
K. A. L. v. Hinkle
If it is determined that a person has intentionally or recklessly engaged in two or more unwanted contacts with a person, which alarms the recipient in an objectively reasonable manner, a trial court may issue a stalking protective order. ORS 163.738(2)(a)(B)(i). The recipient of the unwanted contacts must have a "reasonable apprehension regarding his or her personal safety." ORS 163.738(2)(a)(B)(iii). However, when the contacts are merely expressive, (i.e. spoken or written communications), Article 1, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution requires a showing that "those expressive contacts constitute[d] 'threats.'" State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Walsh
Under ORS 132.560(1)(b), a charging instrument may typically charge one offense, but may provide for multiple offenses if they were executed by the same person(s), and are "of the same or similar character," occurred during "the same act or transaction," or are connected by "a common scheme or plan." If the requirements of ORS 132.560 are not met, and evidence of the improperly joined charge(s) is unlikely to have been admissible in a separate trial, the error is harmless if there is "little likelihood that the inadmissible evidence would [affect] the verdict in that separate trial." State v. Poston, 277 Or App 137, 145, (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Hunsinger v. Graham
To establish a claim for third party liability under ORS 124.100(5), a party must provide sufficient evidence of defendant’s actual knowledge or constructive knowledge that abuse of a vulnerable person occurred. Wyers v. American Medical Response Northwest, Inc., 360 Or 211, 377 P3d 570 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Elder Law
Wille v. Board of Parole
Simply because a reasonable person could come to a different conclusion does not suggest that the board’s implicit finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Weems/Roberts v. Board of Parole, 347 Or. 586, 602-03, 227 P.3d 671 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Balero
Revealing personal information about another person to a third party others does not constitute “interference” for purposes of the FAPA. State v. Trivitt, 247 Or. App. 199, 203, 268 P.3d 765 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
State v. Burnham
The affidavit of a search warrant must substantiate probable cause to search the contents of each individual electronic device included in the warrant. State v. Friddle, 281 Or App 130, 381 P3d 979 (2016); State v. Mansor, 279 Or App 778, 381 P3d 930 (2016), rev allowed, 360 Or 752 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Wildlife Law
Certain Underwriters v. Mass. Bonding and Ins. Co.
As long as appeal is pending, finality does not attach piecemeal to the parts of a judgment or order that are not placed in direct controversy by the parties’ arguments on appeal. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Koitzsch, 155 Or App 494, 500 (1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Moreno
There is no error in a trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction that is incomplete. State v. Wan, 251 Or App 74, 83 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Aaroe and Aaroe
A "court should increase or decrease spousal support only to the degree necessary to enable the parties to adjust to the new circumstances." Thomas and Thomas, 181 Or. App. 128, 134 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Reinert v. Clackamas County
For purposes of ZDO 1307.16(K), “substantial similarity” between applications depends upon whether there are material differences in the content of both applications with respect to application of the approval criteria. Reinert v. Clackamas County, 286 Or. App. 431, 438 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Persels & Associates, LLC v. DCBS
ORS 697.612(3)(b) provides an exemption to the registration requirement for attorneys who provide a debt management service only “incidentally in the practice of law.”
Area(s) of Law:- Consumer Credit
State v. Long
The state must prove either that the defendant inflicted substantial pain on or impaired the physical condition of the alleged victim in order to convict the defendant of fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence. ORS 161.015(7); ORS 163.160(1)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Sheil and Sheil 286 Or App 34 (2017)
An agreement to waive the right to seek modification of spousal support is enforceable if it does not violate public policy. McInnis and McInnis, 199 Or. App. 223, 110 P.3d 639 (2005), rev dismissed, 338 Or. 681 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Farnworth v. Rossetto
A municipality does not assume any duty that is not expressly stated in its statutes. Indian Creek Development Co. v. City of Hood River, 203 Or App 231, 237-239, rev den, 340 OR 158 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Gutale v. State of Oregon
Under ORS 153.510(3)(a), a petitioner's subjective lack of awareness of the legal consequences of a plea will not delay the time in which a petition must be filed.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Shearer’s Food v. Hoffnagle
A single document may function as both an acceptance and a denial [of a worker's compensation claim]. Stockdale v. SAIF, 192 Or. App. 289, 84 P.3d 1120 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Aguilar-Ramos
Under ORS 137.106(1)(a), inattentiveness to the passage of time on the part of a prosecutor does not constitute good cause to impose restitution beyond the 90-day deadline. State v. Martinez, 246 Or. App. 383, 387, rev den, 351 Or. 507 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure