Willamette Law Online

Oregon Court of Appeals

2014

( 24 summaries )

January

1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC

Land Use: LCDC had not adequately explained why inclusion of certain land in a UGB was supported by substantial reason and consistent with Statewide Land Use Planning Goals 9 and 14 and other rules.

(Filing Date: 01-02-2014)

Delgado v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N. A., Inc.

Remedies: "Employers" under ORS 653.010(3) may be liable for penalty wages on summary judgment under ORCP 61 B.

(Filing Date: 01-02-2014)

DHS v. J.G.

Juvenile Law: When a juvenile court makes an "active efforts" finding at a permanency hearing in which it changes an Indian child's permanency plan from return to parent to establishment of a durable guardianship, section 1912(d) of ICWA does not require the juvenile court to renew that "active efforts" finding at a later proceeding in which the court effects that guardianship placement under ORS 419B.366

(Filing Date: 01-02-2014)

State v. A. D. G.

Juvenile Law: Under ORS 419B.923(7), the juvenile court may enter default judgment, terminating an individual's parental rights, only when that person is absent from the hearing or trial on termination petition.

(Filing Date: 01-02-2014)

State v. Lane

Sentencing: OAR 213-012-0040(2) limits a trial court’s authority to impose consecutive prison terms when there is a single probation violation.

(Filing Date: 01-02-2014)

State v. Martin

Criminal Procedure: For an arrest for unlawful prostitution procurement activity (UPPA), the officer must have a substantial objective basis for believing that, more likely than not, the defendant had engaged in conduct constituting a substantial step in furtherance of an act of prostitution.

(Filing Date: 01-02-2014)

Assn. of Acupuncture v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners

Administrative Law: The State Board of Chiropractic Examiners is limited to making rules that fall within the definition of the practice of "chiropractic" as defined by ORS 684.010(2). Rules made outside the scope of that authority will be found invalid.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2014)

Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council v. Albert

Workers Compensation: The Worker's Compensation Board is required to use evidence on the record to determine whether a claimant has been released to his post-injury job, such as medical records, claimant's own description of work history, employer's Regular Duty Job analysis, and evidence about claimant's post injury capacity.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2014)

Chou v. Farmers Ins. Exchange

Attorney Fees: Under ORS 20.310, parties must only include as costs those that were necessarily incurred in appearing for the appeal, exclusive of computerized legal research.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2014)

Emerson v. Kusano

Contract Law: In the case of mutual mistake as to policy limits in a settlement agreement, in absence of clear and convincing evidence that the parties would have agreed to the actual policy limits, rather than what they mistakenly believed them to be, there is no antecedent agreement, and there is nothing to which the contract may be reformed.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2014)

Flaig v. Emert

Trusts and Estates: ORS 115.145 and ORS 115.165 do not authorize the summary determination of counterclaims by a personal representative.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2014)

McDowell Welding & Pipefitting v. US Gypsum Co.

Contract Law: Under ORS 81.010, a written offer of payment must communicate a present offer of timely payment. The prospect that payment might occur at some point in the future is not sufficient.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2014)

Rhoades v. Beck

Contract Law: Subsequent discovery of a lien will not negate a settled upon contract for full and final release of Defendant when there is evidence objectively establishing the existence of an agreement.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2014)

Root v. Klamath County

Land Use: To reverse a LUBA decision, the evidence must be so at odds with LUBA's evaluation that it is reasonable to infer that LUBA either misunderstood or misapplied its scope of review.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2014)

State v. Brewer

Sentencing: In order to justify the imposition of a downward departure sentence, ORS 137.712(2)(d)(B) requires a defendant to prove that representation of being armed with a dangerous weapon did not reasonably put the victim in fear of imminent significant physical injury.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2014)

State v. Cain

Evidence: When a business record is maintained in the ordinary course of business, and there is a duty to report, the document qualifies as admissible hearsay under OEC 803(6). Additionally, it is a plain error to impose post-judgment interest on restitution awarded for non-economic damages.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2014)

State v. Danielson

Criminal Procedure: Implied consent does not apply to officers opening an almost completely closed bedroom door; therefore, police officers' observations made after doing so are considered an unlawful search.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2014)

State v. Wieboldt

Criminal Procedure: Advising a defendant of the lawful consequences that may flow from his or her decision to engage in a certain behavior ensures that the defendant makes an informed choice whether to engage in that behavior or not. Thus, a statement of the lawful consequences of refusal to submit to breath, blood, or urine tests is not unconstitutionally coercive.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2014)

Howe v. Greenleaf

Property Law: A statutory presumption exists that parcels of land which have a road as a boundary include up to the center line of the road unless the title to the road is clearly held by another party.

(Filing Date: 01-29-2014)

State v. Delong

Criminal Procedure: When an individual consents to a search following a custodial interrogation where Miranda warnings were not given, that consent is not a knowing and voluntary waiver of the individual's rights under the Oregon Constitution.

(Filing Date: 01-29-2014)

State v. Egeland

Evidence: When refusal to give a requested jury instruction results in a jury conviction that would have likely been affected by the rejected instruction, the court may have committed harmful error.

(Filing Date: 01-29-2014)

State v. Neal

Criminal Procedure: When a defendant is not brought to trial in accordance with ORS 135.763 to ORS 135.765 (Oregon's speedy trial provisions) and none of the exceptions under ORS 135.765(2) apply, a court is obligated to dismiss the case upon motion by defendant.

(Filing Date: 01-29-2014)

State v. S.N.R.

Juvenile Law: For a party to be found grossly negligent for falling asleep while driving, there must have been such prior warning that there was a likelihood they would fall asleep that continuing driving would constitute a conscious and reckless disregard of the possible consequences.

(Filing Date: 01-29-2014)

State v. Coverstone

Sentencing: When a trial court imposes court-appointed attorney fees upon a defendant despite no indication on the record of the defendant's ability to pay those fees, it is a "plain error" pursuant to ORAP 5.45(1).

(Filing Date: 01-30-2014)

( 32 summaries )

February

Stevens v. City of Island City

Land Use: Under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C), LUBA can only reverse or remand the decision of the local government if the decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

(Filing Date: 02-05-2014)

Campbell v. Tardio

Family Law: A dismissal of an award of custody does not change the date of "commencement of the proceeding" for purposes of determining the "home state" of the child under ORS 109.741(1).

(Filing Date: 02-12-2014)

Green v. Franke

Post-Conviction Relief: To be entitled to post-conviction relief on the basis of inadequate assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts demonstrating that trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that petitioner suffered prejudice as a result. The Oregon Constitution does not give a criminal defendant the right to a perfect defense, but it requires that the lawyer do those things reasonably necessary to diligently and conscientiously advance the defense.

(Filing Date: 02-12-2014)

Relling v. Khorenian

Property Law: A multiplicity of access points to a landlocked parcel defeats an easement of necessity claim.

(Filing Date: 02-12-2014)

State v. Adame

Criminal Procedure: If a defendant understands that a refusal to perform verbal field sobriety tests cannot be used against him in a court of law, the defendant is not "compelled" to provide testimonial evidence for the purposes of the self-incrimination clause.

(Filing Date: 02-12-2014)

State v. Bax

Criminal Law: When an indictment uses the language of a specific intent, required by a statute, the court should not charge a defendant with lesser-included offenses that have different specific intent or elements than the statute

(Filing Date: 02-12-2014)

State v. Davis

Criminal Law: Second-degree burglary convictions affirmed and reversed based on whether buildings were "not open to the public" as defined in ORS 164.205(3)(a).

(Filing Date: 02-12-2014)

State v. Gruver

Criminal Law: A court cannot convict a defendant on a charge for which the defendant was not indicted, unless the conviction is for an offense that is a lesser-included offense within the offense charged in the indictment.

(Filing Date: 02-12-2014)

State v. Hikes

Sentencing: A trial court may take into account a defendant’s attitude at sentencing, as well as his extensive criminal history when determining eligibility for sentence modification programs.

(Filing Date: 02-12-2014)

State v. Nugent

Criminal Procedure: In a criminal trespass case, even if the court erred by giving a single instruction rather than a double instruction, the error does not require reversal if the instruction did not mislead the jury.

(Filing Date: 02-12-2014)

State v. Ohotto

Evidence: Testimony on the rate of dissipation of alcohol in the blood is improper lay opinion where the deputy testifying merely read training manuals on alcohol dissipation, took a training course, and conducted routine DUII investigations.

(Filing Date: 02-12-2014)

State v. Richardson

Criminal Law: A photograph depicting a fully-clothed child touching a person's leg who is engaged in sexual activity with a naked woman constitutes first-degree encouraging child sexual abuse under ORS 163.684. Additionally, a photograph that depicts a fully-clothed child standing near two people who are in a sexual situation constitutes using a child a in a display of sexually explicit conduct under ORS 163.670.

(Filing Date: 02-12-2014)

Brand Energy Services, LLC v. OR-OSHA

Workers Compensation: OR-OSHA rule 29 CFR section 1926.451(g)(1), requiring employees working on scaffolds to be protected by fall-protection systems, does not apply to employees dismantling a scaffold. However, 29 CFR section 1926.451(g)(2) does apply.

(Filing Date: 02-20-2014)

D.W.C. v. Carter

Civil Stalking Protective Order: Under ORS 30.866, a stalking protective order requires a petitioner have subjective alarm, that alarm to be objectively reasonable, and that alarm to be the result of multiple qualifying contacts.

(Filing Date: 02-20-2014)

Gambee v. Oregon Medical Board

Administrative Law: Under ORS 677.190(1)(b)(A), a doctor that puts his/her patients at a risk of harm greater than the standard treatment does not qualify as “alternative medical treatment.”

(Filing Date: 02-20-2014)

Haggerty and Haggerty

Family Law: The trial court erred when it failed to determine whether the parties had entered into a valid settlement agreement.

(Filing Date: 02-20-2014)

Leach v. Scottsdale Indemnity Co.

Insurance Law: An insurer's duty to defend arises when a claim against its insured could, without amendment, impose liability for conduct covered by the policy. An insurer's duty to indemnify arises only where the insured is actually liable for harm or injury covered by the policy.

(Filing Date: 02-20-2014)

Merrill Lynch Commercial Finance Corp. v. Hemstreet

Property Law: When a creditor has a judgment that includes both a money judgment and a foreclosure judgment, ORS 88.060 does not preclude the creditor from collecting on a money judgment independently and prior to the foreclosure sale.

(Filing Date: 02-20-2014)

Singh v. Sidhu

Civil Procedure: For a party to successfully argue for the reversal of a court's judgment on the basis of a jury's lack of evidence for their conclusion, the party must show that the jury substantially affected their rights.

(Filing Date: 02-20-2014)

State v. Clemente-Perez

Criminal Law: A person’s “place of residence” under ORS 166.250(2)(b) may encompass temporary structures and outdoor areas adjacent to temporary structures if used for daily living activities. The courts look to evidence of a person’s actual use to determine if it is used for daily living activities.

(Filing Date: 02-20-2014)

State v. Gray

Criminal Procedure: A court's failure to properly instruct a jury on the requisite culpable mental state required to commit the charged crime will result in plain error, which does not require preservation for appellate review.

(Filing Date: 02-20-2014)

State v. Stinstrom

Criminal Procedure: Administrative seizures are not subject to the inventory exception if the item is not already lawfully possessed by the officer.

(Filing Date: 02-20-2014)

Wright v. Turner

Insurance Law: The term "accident", as used in statutorily prescribed insurance contracts, is interpreted by legislative intent. Furthermore, whether more than one "accident" has occurred is ordinarily a question of fact reserved for the factfinder.

(Filing Date: 02-21-2014)

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

Juvenile Law: Juvenile statutes authorize a court to order a parent to participate in a psychological evaluation if the evaluation bears a rational relationship to the bases the court found for taking jurisdiction over the child.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2014)

Dept of Human Services v. N.B

Family Law: A marked improvement in mental health condition is not necessarily sufficient to overcome the Court's wardship as to children.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2014)

Eclectic Investment, LLC. v. Patterson

Tort Law: The distinction between active and passive negligence is but one factor to consider when determining whether or not indemnification among co-defendants is proper.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2014)

Martin v. Gomes

Trusts and Estates: An expectancy interest is distinct from a property interest. An order relating to division of assets that addresses only property interests will not contravene a designated beneficiary's right to receive funds as an expectancy interest.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2014)

Nkrumah v. City of Portland

Employment Law: To establish a wrongful discharge case on the basis of a "public duty" when the employee quits his or her employment, he or she must establish that the public entity created objectively intolerable working conditions, resulting in the employee's forced resignation, because of the employee's fulfillment of the asserted public duty.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2014)

Piazza v. Dept. of Human Services

Evidence: Written admissions, if used as evidence through testimony or closing argument, present cumulative evidence if presented as a jury instruction.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2014)

State v. Hawkins

Post-Conviction Relief: Under ORS 138.230, an error is not harmless when a defendant is denied their right to an acquittal and their right to have the judgment reflect that acquittal.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2014)

Utility Reform Project v. PUC

Administrative Law: The PUC is not required to order a return of overpayment of taxes to ratepayers where the utility did not earn a reasonable return on investment.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2014)

Wilson v. Gutierrez

Remedies: A benefit that is conferred not as a gift but as expected substituted payment can support a finding of unjust enrichment.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2014)

( 36 summaries )

March

C.M.V. v. Ackley

Civil Law: In order for a FAPA restraining order to be upheld, a party seeking to maintain the order must make a showing, with evidence, that conduct of the other presented imminent danger of further abuse and a credible threat to physical safety.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2014)

Dept. of Human Servs. v. D. A. S., Jr.

Juvenile Law: Under ORS 107.097(3)(a), to continue jurisdiction over a juvenile, the party asserting jurisdiction must present evidence that the juvenile would be exposed to a current threat of serious loss or injury.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2014)

Head v. Head

Trusts and Estates: The court may not grant relief in the form of modifying a trust instrument's terms, if modification was not reasonably contemplated by the parties and substantially departs from the pleadings and legal theories.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2014)

State v. Burton

Criminal Law: In cases litigated prior to State v. Mills, 354 Or 350 (2013), a defendant may challenge venue through a motion for judgment of acquittal.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2014)

State v. Daniels

Criminal Procedure: A prosecutor can obtain recordings of inmate conversations from the Department of Corrections for discovery and must disclose the recordings to the defendant if the recordings are in the prosecutor's possession or control.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2014)

State v. Ferguson

Criminal Procedure: For purposes of ORS 135.703 and ORS 135.705, the ‘person injured’ who must participate in a valid civil compromise is the person or persons directly injured by the acts criminalized by the statute under which a defendant is charged.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2014)

State v. Lopez

Criminal Law: Under ORS 137.106, restitution must be imposed within 90 days after sentencing or otherwise extended by the court for good cause and Defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard before the court on the imposition, amount, or distribution of the restitution.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2014)

State v. Weilert

Appellate Procedure: Given the state of the law at the time of defendant's trial, it would be unfair to hold that Defendant forfeited the opportunity to challenge venue prior to trial.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2014)

Fox v. Employment Department

Employment Law: A decision under OAR 471-030-0038 denying unemployment benefits for misconduct will not stand unless there are clear findings on intent. Conduct that amounts to an irreparable breach of trust does not remove the need to examine intent.

(Filing Date: 03-12-2014)

Neumann v. Liles

Tort Law: To avoid dismissal under ORS 31.150, Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, the plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case in support of their claim. The bar for presenting a prima facie case is low.

(Filing Date: 03-12-2014)

Fleming v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Administrative Law: Petitioner must first raise issues on administrative review in order for them to subsequently be considered on judicial review.

(Filing Date: 03-19-2014)

Gomez and Gomez

Family Law: In awarding child custody, a court must first determine what party is entitled the statutory preference in favor of the primary caregiver under ORS 107.137(1).

(Filing Date: 03-19-2014)

Ibarra v. Barnes

Family Law: In-chambers conversations held off the record may create an insufficient record for the Court of Appeals to review on appeal.

(Filing Date: 03-19-2014)

Sherwood Park Business Center, LLC. v. Taggart

Corporations: If a trial court declares a member's expulsion from an LLC and the remaining members exercise their option to purchase the expelled member's share, the interest owed for the purchase begins to accrue on the date the trial court enters its judgment.

(Filing Date: 03-19-2014)

State v. Barnes

Evidence: Erroneously admitted testimony admissible if there is "little likelihood" it affected the verdict.

(Filing Date: 03-19-2014)

State v. Negrete

Criminal Procedure: In order for a factfinder to find the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence must be sufficient under the totality of the circumstances.

(Filing Date: 03-19-2014)

Tolle v. Franke

Post-Conviction Relief: A petition for post-conviction relief that meets the requirements of ORS 138.580 should not be dismissed.

(Filing Date: 03-19-2014)

Cannon v. Dept. of Justice

Civil Procedure: Plaintiff commences a timely action under the Oregon Tort Claims Act, and ORS 30.275(2)(b), when he files an action within 180 days of injury and serves Defendant within 60 days of filing.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

Clackamas River Water v. Holloway

Civil Law: Under ORS 31.150(1)(3), Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute, a defendant's successful special motion to strike canooot then "proceed to trial."

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

Dept. of Human Services v. I.S.

Juvenile Law: Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), juvenile dependency jurisdiction is proper when "condition or circumstances are such as to endanger the welfare" of the child. If a court does not find that a parent has exposed children to reasonable likelihood of harm, then the conditions of jurisdiction have not been met.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

Dept. of Human Services v. R.S.

Juvenile Law: An agency's initial jurisdiction in juvenile court is not subject to collateral attack in a later proceeding; the only proper jurisdictional challenge is to the court's continuing jurisdiction.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

Frontgate Properties, LLC v. Bennett

Contract Law: Under the doctrine of merger, any inconsistency between the terms of a contract of purchase for real estate and there terms of the deed are governed by the deed, but this does not apply when, through fraud or relievable mistake, the grantee has been induced to accept something different from what was agreed upon by the parties.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

Johnson v. DMV

Criminal Procedure: Under ORS 813.440(1)(d)and OAR 735-090-0120(4), an "official duty conflict" justifying the postponement of a suspension hearing is an obligatory task connected with a police officer that prevents the officer from appearing at a hearing. An officer's jury duty does not qualify.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

Mesta v. Franke

Post-Conviction Relief: The Oregon Constitution does not require appellate counsel to put forth every possible argument in the small chance a subsequent change in law will make the argument effective at a later date.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

Miller v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Parole and Post-Prison Supervision: A parole-release date that has been challenged, if past the date, will be deemed moot because there is no practical effect on the rights of the parties.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

State v. Beauvais

Evidence: Simply because evidence subsequently becomes irrelevant after the state's dismissal of charges relating to another defendant, is not sufficient to demonstrate prejudice.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

State v. Berry

Criminal Procedure: To raise a timely double jeopardy claim, the defendant must raise the claim before the second trials starts if all of the facts that are required to prove double jeopardy are well-known.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

State v. Bistrika

Criminal Law: Jury instructions which insert an irrelevant issue into a case constitute a reversible error.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

State v. J.C.L.

Criminal Procedure: A warrantless seizure of a youth's computer and hard drive can be justified by the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

State v. King

Criminal Law: Under ORS 161.067(3), a single criminal episode of assault may be multiple violations when an assault is commenced, stops, and begins again. The pause must constitute a sufficient opportunity to renounce criminal intent.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

State v. Licari

Criminal Procedure: A denial for a continuance is measured on an abuse of discretion standard, while looking at the particular circumstances of the case and the reasons presented to the court at the time of denial.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

State v. Lobo

Criminal Law: In a criminal case, when a error that was not exclusionary of any new evidence occurs and would not affect the verdict, it is a harmless error and is not reversible. Additionally, OEC 803(18a)(b) does not requires the trial court to hold a pretrial conference to determine the availability of a witness where the hearsay declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

State v. Poitra

Criminal Law: The state of mind of an arresting officer is not relevant to a self-defense analysis and risks confusing the jury, which instead must evaluate the defendant's reasonable belief as to the circumstances.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

State v. Rivera

Sentencing: Court remands for resentencing in the absence of factual findings on proportionality of a Measure 11 sentence as required by State v. Rodriguez/Buck.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

State v. Roelle

Criminal Procedure: Under ORS 132.560(3), when a jury can easily separate whether a defendant is guilty of two separate types of crimes, joinder is not necessary to prevent prejudice.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

State v. Smith

Evidence: Under ORS 163.670(1), compelling or inducing a child to engage in sexually explicit conduct may be inferred by a factfinder from sexually explicit photographs in which a child’s facial expression conveys that the child has been persuaded or influenced to participate. A jury can infer from the nature of photographs, and the context of other evidence, that they are sexually explicit.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

( 25 summaries )

April

Aleali v. City of Sherwood

Land Use: A deficiency in pre-hearing notice invoking delayed appeal rights, under ORS 197.830(3), is determined solely by state law procedures, and not by local law.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2014)

Bova v. City of Medford

Employment Law: Under ORS 243.303(2), the Supreme Court has rejected the argument that "if there are providers available who are willing to provide [health insurance] coverage that includes retirees, the city must provide that coverage, regardless of cost or other circumstances" and reasons that the statute was not intended to be “unduly burdensome”; Under ORS 659A.030(1)(b), a plaintiff’s complaint must plead age discrimination based on a theory of disparate impact.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2014)

Bradley v. State of Oregon

Land Use: Under ORS 376.185(1), a court shall not unreasonably withhold its consent to a landowner's petition for a way of necessity. Whether consent is unreasonably withheld is measured by whether the withholding was arbitrary or capricious.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2014)

Croghan v. Don's Dugout, LLC

Civil Procedure: When a party believes that a verdict is inconsistent it must (1) object to the verdict before the jury is discharged, and (2) request jury clarification of the matter under ORCP 59 G(4).

(Filing Date: 04-02-2014)

Dept. of Human Services v. J.M.

Juvenile Law: In a permanency hearing, evidence relating to a child's original unexplained injury is not irrelevant as an attack on DHS's jurisdiction because it may be probative in the remedial steps parents must make toward reunification.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2014)

Sellwood-Moreland Improv. League v. City of Portland

Land Use: Unless the Plan District’s code expressly precludes density transfers between sites in multi-dwelling zones, the density transfer will be allowed to preserve development opportunities for new housing and to reduce development pressure on environmentally sensitive sites.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2014)

State v. Andrews

Evidence: In order to preserve an assignment of error, Defendant must argue at trial that testimony must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2014)

State v. Arnold

Evidence: In order to admit evidence of a prior bad act, the state must show that the acts were "so distinctive that both crimes can be attributable to one criminal. In other words, the modus operandi must be unusual."

(Filing Date: 04-02-2014)

State v. Lewallen

Post-Conviction Relief: Under ORS 138.083, a court is not required to grant a motion to correct an alleged error with a hearing, rather, the court has discretionary authority to grant or deny such relief.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2014)

State v. Medina

Criminal Law: Under ORS 165.800, signing a false name to a police document, which is then used to discover the signer’s true name, constitutes converting and uttering the “personal identification of another person… with intent to deceive.”

(Filing Date: 04-02-2014)

State v. Peters

Criminal Procedure: Asking a person lawfully stopped for a traffic violation the location of a known associate that is at large does not constitute an unlawful extension of the stop via Article 1, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2014)

State v. Prieto-Rubio

Criminal Law: Police must notify a Defendant's attorney before interviewing him or her about separate but factually related offenses when he or she has obtained representation in one of the cases.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2014)

State v. Shumate

Criminal Procedure: Remand denied where defendant failed to identify flaws in original sentencing proceeding. For a court order to be appealable, it must resolve all charges brought in the case.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2014)

State v. Webb

Criminal Law: A structure is a "building" under ORS 164.205(1) if it has been adapted for carrying on a business.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2014)

Rogue Valley Sewer Services v. City of Phoenix

Municipal Law: Where a city's charter broadly confers all authority not denied by state or federal law, it confers on the city the power to impose local taxes and to regulate matters subject to municipal regulation.

(Filing Date: 04-09-2014)

State v. Andrade

Sentencing: Ballot Measure 11 and ORS 137.700 convictions of first-degree rape and first-degree sodomy do not require that the court impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences.

(Filing Date: 04-09-2014)

State v. Goetzinger

Evidence: Bruising to an infant child alone does not constitute sufficient evidence to show medical care was necessary under ORS 163.200.

(Filing Date: 04-09-2014)

State v. Rodriguez-Perez

Criminal Procedure: Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, officers’ reasonable suspicion must is examined for what is objectively reasonable. An individual appearing agitated while his brother is being searched is not enough to warrant reasonable suspicion.

(Filing Date: 04-09-2014)

Adair Homes, Inc. v. Dunn Carney

Contract Law: A court resorts to the general policy in favor of arbitration only when a contract is ambiguous and there is no extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2014)

Blankenship v. Smalley

Civil Law: Under ORS 67.040, a business partner’s actions will be binding on his partner unless the other party had actual knowledge or notice of that partner’s lack of authority to bind his partner.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2014)

City of Beaverton v. Pack

Criminal Procedure: When reviewing the sufficiency of a jury instruction, the Court will review all instructions given to determine whether the jury was properly informed of the applicable requirements of the crime charged.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2014)

Ramirez v. Northwest Renal Clinic

Civil Procedure: Notice of voluntary dismissal does not require a court ruling to be effective, and is thus sufficient to dismiss an action without prejudice despite pendency of the grant of a motion for summary judgment.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2014)

Sohn v. Thi

Civil Procedure: Under ORCP 54 A, dismissal of a case is to be with prejudice where the plaintiff’s dismissed action and prior action was (1) against the same defendant and (2) for the same claim.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2014)

State v. Durando

Criminal Procedure: If conviction would have occurred despite the evidence in question being suppressed then it is considered a harmless error; however, unlawfully obtained evidence that is the sole evidence leading to a conviction will be suppressed.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2014)

State v. Newcomb

Criminal Procedure: Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution governing privacy rights with respect to personal effects, extraction and testing of a dog's blood is a "search" because those actions constitute a physical invasion of a defendant's personal property which reveal otherwise concealed evidence.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2014)