Thomas Ybarra

Oregon Supreme Court (4 summaries)

Ellison v. Dept. of Rev.

If the Tax Court finds “in favor of the taxpayer” in proceedings for ad volorem property taxation, exemptions, special assessments or omitted property, the Tax Court is permitted to award reasonable attorneys fees in addition to costs and disbursements. ORS 305.490(4)(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Parrish v. Rosenblum

A caption must be reasonably identifiable in subject matter. "Yes" and "no" statements must be laid out as simple and understandable. The summary must be a “concise and impartial statement” that summarizes the legislation and its major effects. ORS 250.035(2)(a) - (2)(d).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Ballot Titles

TriMet v. Aizawa

“[T]he court shall give judgment to the [property owner] for the amount offered as just compensation for the property * * * and, in addition, for costs and disbursements, attorney fees and expenses that are determined by the court to have been incurred before service of the offer on the [owner].” ORS 35.300(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

State v. K. A. M.

Requesting identification does not sufficient a stop on its own. However, an encounter can rise to the level of a stop if under the totality of the circumstances, the types of questions, manner of which they are asked, or other police action would make a reasonable person believe the police are “exercising their authority to coercively detain” them. State v. Backstrand, 354 Or 382, 412, 313 P3d 1084 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Oregon Court of Appeals (21 summaries)

Dept. of Human Services v. C. T.

For testimony to be considered helpful, under OEC 702, “the subject of the testimony must be within the expert’s field, the witness must be qualified, and the foundation for the opinion must intelligibly relate the testimony to the facts.” State v. Brown, 297 OR 404, 409, 687 P2d 751 (1984).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Dept. of Human Services v. H. F. E.

“To be ‘plain’ the error must (1) be an error of law; (2) be obvious, meaning that the legal point is not reasonable in dispute; and (3) appear on the record.” ORAP 5.45(1); State v. Vanornum, 354 OR 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. R. W. G.

A claim of error is preserved when the legal insufficiency of the evidence is argued before the court. This is different from a closing argument only persuading a factfinder that the evidence does not favor the other party beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Forrester, 203 Or App 151, 155, 125 P3d 47 (2005), rev den, 341 Or 141 (2006).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Walsh

As a general rule, "[an appellate court] will not consider an argument on appeal that has not been raised in the trial court." State v. Walker, 350 Or 540, 548, 258 P3d 1228 (2011). In order to determine whether an issue has been preserved for appeal, a court will look to “whether a party has given opponents and the trial court enough information to be able to under the contention and to fairly respond to it.”  State v. Blasingame, 267 Or App 686, 691, 341 P3d 182 (2014), rev den, 357 Or 299 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Garcia-Solis v. Farmers Ins. Co.

Under ORS 656.245(1), “[d]iagnostic services can only be compensable if they are required for a determination or severity of an already accepted compensable injury, but “diagnostic services for the purpose of establishing the compensability of a new or consequential condition are not compensable.” Counts v. International Paper Co., 146 Or App 268, 271 (1997).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Iverson's Unlimited, Inc. v. Winco Foods, LLC

On summary judgment, “a reasonable jury could reach . . . a contrary conclusion, but . . . the question is not which conclusion is most likely but whether an issue of fact exists that permits jury resolution.” Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or 319, 332 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

State v. Carpenter

A person can conceal another “through an act or omission with the intent to induce law enforcement to believe that the fugitive is not present.” State v. Turley, 202 Or App 49-50, 120 P3d 1229 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 157 (2006).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Gaines v. Employment Dept.

“In determining whether the board’s order is supported by substantial reason, [the court] consider[s] whether that order articulate the reasoning that leads from the facts found to the conclusions drawn.” Walker v. Providence Health System Oregon, 254 Or App 676, 686, 298 P3d 38, rev den, 353 Or 714 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Villar

An argument may be preserved for appeal if it is apparent from the record that the trial court should have known the reasoning behind a general objection to the admissibility of evidence. Williamson v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 284 Or 11, 16, 584 P2d 753 (1978).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Pack

A joinder is harmful to a defendant if (1) the evidence under both cases would have been admissible in individual, separate trials for each case and (2) the evidence admitted improperly affected the verdict. State v. Clardy, 286 Or App 745, 772-73 (2017); State v. Marks, 286 Or App 775 (2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Norgren

A waiver of Miranda rights must be made knowingly and intelligently with full awareness of the consequences of the waiver. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Deford, 177 Or App 555, 572-73, 34 P3d 673 (2001).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Geyer ​

“Preservation requires that an issue must first be presented to the trial court in order to be considered on appeal . . . . [T]he preservation rule is a practical one, and close calls . . . inevitably will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the court concludes that the policies underlying the rule have been sufficiently served.” State v. Parkins, 346 Or. 333, 341, (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

State v. Holsclaw

"‘Premises where persons under 18 years of age regularly congregate’ means schools, child care centers, playgrounds, other places intended for use primarily by persons under 18 years of age and places where persons under 18 years of age gather for regularly scheduled educational and recreational programs.” ORS 163.476(2)(a)(2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Beltran-Chavez

If evidence will be perceived by a jury as scientific and, therefore, have an "unusually high degrees of persuasive power," a court must ensure that the "persuasive appeal is legitimate." State v. Okey, 321 Or 285, 291 (1995).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Oregon Wild v. Port of Portland

"A law is classified under the 'first category' if it is 'written in terms directed to the substance of any "opinion or any "subject" of communication'". State v. Robertson, 293 Or. at 412

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Khoshnaw

Under ORAP 5.45(4)(a)(iii), an assignment of error challenging an evidentiary ruling, must quote or summarize the evidence that appellant claims was erroneously admitted or excluded; If an assignment of error challenges the exclusion of evidence, appellant also must identify in the record where the trial court excluded the evidence and where the offer of proof was made.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Savinskiy

“Article 1, Section II, can also foreclose interrogation of a defendant without his or her attorney present when the interrogation is regarding uncharged conduct and occurs after the defendant has retained counsel for a previously charged offense, if the charged and uncharged conduct is ‘sufficiently related.’” State v. Prieto-Rubio, 359 Or. 36-37 (2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Ambriz-Arguello

When appealing a conviction for evidentiary error, petitioner must show based on the totality of the record that the court’s error affected a substantial right, and the jury’s verdict. State v. Kayfes, 213 Or App 543, 555, 162 P3d 308, rev den, 343 Or 690 (2007).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Hogeland

Under ORS 136.425(1), “[a] confession or admission of a defendant . . . cannot be given in evidence against the defendant when it [is] made under the influence of fear produced by threats.” To determine whether a person's admissions were voluntary, the Court examines whether a person’s capacity for self-determination is critical impaired, under the totality of the circumstances. State v. Ruiz-Piza, 262 Or. App. 563, 573, 325 P.3d 802 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Girard

Under ORS 162.155(1)(b), it is a second-degree escape if, after having been convicted of a felony, a defendant escapes from custody imposed as a result of a felony conviction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Siefken v. Premo

Under Article 1, Section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, to prove prejudice a petitioner must demonstrate his or her trial counsel’s deficient performance "had a tendency to affect the result of the prosecution.’” Green v. Franke, 357 Or 301, 321 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence