Oregon Court of Appeals

Opinions Filed in October 2012

Compressed Pattern, LLC v. Employment Dept. Tax Section

Under ORS 670.600(3), a person has an independently established business when his work location is both maintained and separate from the person for whom he is providing services.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

B.A. v. Webb

Under OEC 403, a witness may not comment on the credibility of another witness and a diagnosis of sexual abuse without any physical evidence is not admissible.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Cherry v. Dept. of Education

A proposed final order revoking a bus driver's certificate is not arbitrary and capricious if the rule provides the agency with discretion in doing so, and there is no other agency rule, policy, or practice inconsistent with the exercise of that discretion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Dept. of Human Services v. K. L. W.

The appointment of a guardian ad litem for an individual will be upheld if sufficient evidence is shown that the guardian ad litem is necessary to advance the individual's interests.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Ivers v. Salladay

ORCP 68 does not apply when there is not a substantive right to recover attorney fees. It would be contrary to the structure and purpose of UTMA to apply ORCP 68.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Lucas v. Lake County

A suit between two parties is not barred by claim preclusion when there is prior litigation between the parties that arose from a different transaction. Additionally, a claim is wrongfully dismissed when the amended complaints were consistent in showing the discharge offends public policy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Oregonian Publishing Co., LLC v. Waller

Seeking declaratory relief in Circuit Court, under Oregon Public Records Law, challenging a Judge's refusal to publicly release a juvenile court order, is not a substitute for judicially appealing the Judge's determination not to release the order.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC v. Columbia Riverkeeper

Pursuant to ORS 197.825, a county's withdrawal of a decision for reconsideration of a matter that is currently being appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) does not divest LUBA of exclusive jurisdiction over that matter.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

State v. Benner

There must be sufficient evidence to establish if a defendant or his counsel intentionally waived the right to a 90-day speedy trial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Garner

Under ORS 135.747, a defendant is considered "brought to trial" when the trial commences, even if it eventually ends in a mistrial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Glazier

Injuries making it more difficult for a victim to engage in normal activities constitutes "physical injury" under ORS 161.015(7) and a hardwood floor is a "dangerous weapon" under ORS 161.015(1) because under the circumstances it was capable of causing severe physical injury. Merger is appropriate under ORS 161.067 for violations arising from the same conduct or criminal episode when there was no evidence to indicate that one assault had ended before another began.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. J.S.

For involuntary commitment cases based on a mental disorder, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant''s mental disorder would cause him to inflict danger to himself or to others in the near future.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Commitment

State v. Knapp

An unlawful search has been conducted during a traffic stop when a police officer ceases processing the infraction and delays the stop to perform a search. Evidence found during the unlawful search can be suppressed by a passenger of the vehicle who was unlawfully detained, provided a factual nexus can be shown between the unlawful search and the finding of the evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Musser

Under ORS 164.245, criminal trespass in the second degree is measured under an objectively reasonable person standard, and under ORS 131.605(6) an officer must have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to make a stop. Evidence discovered during an illegal stop is inadmissible.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Pickle

Opening the trunk of a vehicle for a police officer and holding it open is a manifestation of consent to search the vehicle.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Powell

A sentence is excessive if the term of post-prison supervision, when added to a prison term, exceeds the statutory maximum for the crime of conviction. However, the error is harmless when it does not result in any adverse consequences or will not improve the defendant's position.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

State v. Richardson

The state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule, OEC 803(3), does not allow for the admission into evidence of statements displaying a persons recollection of past intent and their subsequent current conclusions based on that intent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Sullivan

Alternative evidence of a single factual occurrence may be offered to prove an element of a crime.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Wood

Under OEC 803(18) hearsay concerning sexual abuse may be admitted when the prosecution gives pretrial notice of the statement. The proponent must identify the statement, the substance of the statement, and the means by which the statement will be introduced.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

State v. Ziska

Under ORS 166.220(1)(a), the "use" of a weapon can be described as either actual use or the immediate threat to use the weapon.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Wright

When the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's answer both raise an issue as to the validity of a trustee's deed, a motion for summary judgment is wrongfully entered without inquiring whether the trustee's sale actually occurred.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Wright v. Turner

A plaintiff who seeks insurance benefits claiming two accidents has the burden of presenting at least prima facie evidence of both accidents and that the two collisions had distinctly different causes; the second accident cannot be a proximate result of the first.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

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

The mere fact of employer control over the injury location is insufficient to establish compensability of the injury. The Workers' Compensation Board is bound to apply the "going and coming" rule where an employee sustains an injury while traveling to or from work outside the course of employment. The injury will not be compensable unless the circumstances surrounding the injury fall within an exception to the rule.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

State v. Davis

A jury instruction is erroneous when defining recklessness in criminal mischief as relating to a particular circumstance rather than only to the resulting damage.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Kaylor

Under ORS 163.205(1)(a), criminal mistreatment in the first degree, an offender must affirmatively withhold something from the victim for it to be considered first-degree criminal mistreatment. Secondly, under ORS 162.285(1)(a), tampering with a witness, a defendant must reasonably and specifically believe that the victim will be called to testify at an official proceeding at the time the statements were made.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Penney

Although a decision regarding what citation to issue gives a police officer discretion regarding whether the vehicle at issue will be impounded, such discretion is constitutionally permissible.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Smith

Once a defendant who has wrongfully appropriated items has been notified that a victim considers property to be stolen, the defendant can no longer claim he did not have knowledge that the items were stolen.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. White

Expert testimony regarding delayed reporting of sexual abuse by a child is relevant to explain why there was a delay in reporting by complainant and to counter a possible argument that the delay indicates a fabrication.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Hall v. ODOT

Planning to regulate property does not amount to a taking even if the planning might reduce the property's value unless the property owner loses all "economically feasible private uses."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Koch v. State

Defense counsel's advice that Defendant should proceed with a stipulated facts trial was incorrect when counsel neither disputed those facts, nor presented any evidence to the contrary.

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

Purdy v. Deere and Co.

When a jury is presented with compound questions that address both the standard of care and causation, the appellant must establish that the jury did not decide the case on causation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

State v. Kuehner

The State may not recover unforeseen expenses related to overtime salary of police officers.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Cornus Corp. v. GEAC Enterprise Solutions, Inc.

The claim preclusive effect of a federal court's judgment is governed by Oregon's claim preclusion law, which states that a claim brought in federal court is not barred in state court unless it was adjudicated on the merits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Horton v. Nelson

Under ORS 20.105, a defendant has been wrongly awarded attorney fees as the prevailing party when the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Nichols v. Employment Dept

Proceedings that derive from ORS 657.270, ORS 657.275, and ORS 657.292, may be used under ORS Chapter 657 for the purposes of preclusion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

State v. Tilden

The Court of Appeals may review for plain error, despite the fact that the defendant did not make an explicit request for review for plain error, when the requirements in ORAP 5.45 are met in the brief

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Back to Top