Oregon Supreme Court (10 summaries)
Bates v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co.
The benefits to which an insured is entitled under an insurance policy do not constitute “money or property” within the meaning of Oregon’s financial elder abuse statute, ORS 124.110(1)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Elder Law
Swanson v. Rosenblum
Under Whitsett v. Kroger, the “subject matter” of a ballot measure for purposes of ORS 250.035(2)(a) is the “actual major effect” of the measure or, “if the measure has more than one major effect, all such effects.”
Area(s) of Law:- Ballot Titles
OHSU v. Oregonian Publishing Co., LLC
HIPAA protects the privacy and confidentiality of “individually identifiable health information” created or received by a health care provider that relates to an individual’s health condition and identifies the individual. 45 CFR § 160.103. The HIPAA Privacy Rule, however, permits disclosure of protected health information where such disclosure is required by state law. 45 CFR § 164.512(a)(1). While Oregon Public Records Law gives every person the right to inspect public records, it exempts individually identifiable health information from disclosure. ORS 192.420(1); ORS 192.502(9)(a); 192.553; ORS 192.556 (11)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Oil Re-Refining Co. v. Environmental Quality Comm.
A strict liability standard applies to the Department of Environmental Quality’s enforcement actions for simple violations of substantive standards.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Chandler
A person’s out-of-court statement about the credibility of a witness or nonwitness complainant is subject to the categorical prohibition against vouching evidence only if the statement is offered for the truth of the credibility opinion that it expresses.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Eastern Oregon Mining Association v. DEQ
In cases involving challenges to administrative "orders in other than a contested case," the issue is not moot if a permit expires during the life of the litigation, as these challenges of the kind that are likely to evade future review.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Altabef
In a prosecution for child sexual abuse, if a trial court determines that other acts evidence is relevant for a non-propensity purpose under OEC 404(3), the court is required, on a proper motion, to conduct due process balancing to weigh the probative value of the evidence against its potential to unduly prejudice the defendant before admitting it.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Koontz
Under State v. Garcia, when the State charges a defendant for interfering with a peace officer based on an express theory that defendant resisted the arrest of another officer, that charge is improper, and may be challenged through a motion for judgment of acquittal.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Harkness v. Platten
Under the apparent authority theory of agency, when an employer gives an employee actual authority to perform certain tasks, that actual authority may create the appearance of authority to perform other related tasks, thus creating an agency relationship in which the employee acts within the scope of employment when performing the “other related tasks.”
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Rains v. Stayton Builders Mart, Inc.
Article I, Section 17 of the Oregon Constitution does not restrict the legislature’s ability to impose a statutory damage cap on specific claims.
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (68 summaries)
Landwatch Lane County v. LCDC
A local government's "noncompliance" with local land use regulations is a pattern of decisionmaking that is representative of a class of decisions involving the same or related provisions of a land use regulation, the same geographic areas, and the same types of land use. OAR 660-045-0020(10).
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Decker
A traffic stop extension requires reasonable suspicion of a specific crime or type of crime. State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 182, 389 P3d 1121 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Simonsen v. Sandy River Auto, LLC
For purposes of the Unlawful Trade Practices Act, “ascertainable loss” is any loss capable of being discovered, observed or established, such that there is some inferred loss of the value of the bargain. Scott v. Western Intern. Surplus Sales, Inc., 267 Or 512, 516-17 (1973).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Sharma v. Providence Health & Services-Oregon
Under Hernandez-Nolt v. Washington County, 283 Or App 633, 641, rev den, 361 Or 543 (2017), to succeed on a wrongful discharge claim using a constructive discharge theory, a plaintiff must prove "that the employer’s motive for the constructive discharge was the plaintiff’s exercise of a job-related right or an important public duty."
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Gilderson v. Taylor
Pursuant to ORS 138.525(2)-(3), a judgment dismissing a post-conviction petition for failure to state a claim is a dismissal of the petition as meritless, rendering the judgment not appealable.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Ydrogo
In order for a court’s admission of evidence to satisfy the Mayfield test, the totality of the attendant circumstances must show the record "demonstrate[s] that the court consciously conducted the required balancing," and "allow[s] for meaningful review of that balancing." State v. Garcia-Rocio, 286 Or App 136, 147-150 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Cleland
Under State v. Hite, 266 Or App 710, 720 (2014) a policy requirement, that officers open every closed container that is designed or objectively likely to contain valuables, serves as the constitutionally necessary constraint on the exercise of individual officers’ discretion.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Black
As a general rule, one witness may not comment on the credibility of another witness, either through direct comments or through statements that are “tantamount” to stating another witness is credible. State v. Chandler, 360 Or 323, 330-331 (2016). Expert testimony is inadmissible under this rule when the primary effect of the testimony is to assist the jury’s assessment of witness credibility. State v. Beauvais, 357 Or 524, 545 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Knapp
For the inevitable discovery exception to the warrant requirement to apply, the State must prove that, even if officers had not conducted a warrantless search, the evidence would have been inevitably discovered through "proper and predictable investigatory procedures." State v. Hensley, 281 Or App 523, 535 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Esquivel
In order to satisfy constitutional requirements, an officer "must provide Miranda warnings to a suspect before interrogating her if she is either in full custody or under compelling circumstances." State v. Magee, 304 Or 261, 265 (1987).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc.
Under Horton v. OHSU, for a statutorily substituted remedy under ORS 31.710(1) to be “substantial” as required by the remedy clause in Article I, section 10 of the Oregon Constitution, the remedy need not restore all damages that the plaintiff sustained to pass constitutional muster; however, a remedy that is only a “paltry fraction” of the damages the plaintiff sustained will unlikely be sufficient.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. Rivera-Ortiz
“A jury may perceive expert testimony as scientific if it rests on a scientific underpinning unfamiliar to the jury, or is phrased in scientific terms.” State v. Beltran-Chavez, 286 Or App 590, 600 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Roberts
In determining whether evidence is admissible over an OEC 403 objection, a trial court must expressly consider the evidence’s relevance, probative value, and risk of unfair prejudice. State v. Brown, 272 Or App 424, 431-32, rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Zielinski
An actor’s personal characteristics are relevant to “the actor’s situation,” and are thereby admissible to support the defense of EED, whereas an actor’s personality characteristics are not. State v. Ott, 297 Or 375, 395-96 (1984)
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Department of Human Services v. T.L.
A juvenile court must make permanency plan determinations under ORS 419B.476(2)(a), in accordance with the bases of the court’s initial jurisdiction that are “expressly stated or fairly implied.” Dept. of Human Services v. N.T., 247 Or App 706, 715-16 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Brunnemer
A trial court abuses its discretion when it overrules a defendant’s objection to a prosecutor’s improper argument if the argument is “likely to prejudice the jury unfairly,” and the trial court does not take action sufficient to cure the prejudice. State v. Logston, 270 Or App 296, 303 (2015) (quoting State v. Bolt, 108 Or App 746, 749, (1991))
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Hurtado
A statement is a confession if made “for the purpose of acknowledging that the speaker is guilty of some criminal offense." A statement is an admission if "made for some purpose other than to acknowledge guilt, and if it is not so closely related to the . . . confession as to become part of it.” See State v. Manzella, 306 Or 303, 315-316 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Clardy
The knowledge component of a defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel can be satisfied if the totality of the circumstances demonstrates the defendant understood the risks of self-representation; the intent component can be demonstrated by a defendant’s conduct. See State v. Howard, 172 Or App 546, 553, rev den, 332 Or 305 (2001); State v. Langley, 351 Or 652, 669 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Harvey v. SAIF
When the Board is determining whether the findings of a Claimant’s attending physician are more accurate than those of medical arbiter under OAR 436-035-0007(5), the Board must provide substantial reason, as well as substantial evidence, on how its factual findings lead to the legal conclusions on which the order is based. Hicks v. SAIF, 196 Or App 146 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Washington
The phrase “passive resistance” means “noncooperation with a lawful order of a peace officer that does not involve active conduct.” State v. McNally, 361 Or 314, 339, 392 P3d 721 (2017),.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
McDermott v. SAIF
Under Schleiss v. SAIF, in the context of a combined condition worker’s compensation claima cognizable preexisting condition is subject apportionment upon the rating of impairment under ORS 656.214 in the benefits award process.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Garcia-Rocio
Under OEC 403, although a trial court is not required to make an explicit record of its thoughts about each of the four OEC 403 balancing analysis steps laid out in State v. Mayfield, the record must indicate that the trial court considered the substance of those four steps, and "engage[d] in the conscious process of balancing the costs of the evidence against its benefits." State v. Conrad, 280 Or App 325, 331 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 851 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Chelemedos 286 Or App 77 (2017)
ORS 136.290 only provides a mechanism for a defendant to obtain release after being held 60 days; it does not provide that incarceration beyond 60 days is automatically prejudicial.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Carroll v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards
ORS 183.745(4) allows a person against whom a civil penalty is to be imposed to request a hearing to challenge the penalty, to be conducted as a contested case hearing.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Dizick
Under ORS 138.083(1)(a), a trial court is not required to grant a defendant’s motion to modify an erroneous sentencing term, so long as it articulates a permissible reason for declining to do so. State v. Harding, 225 Or App 386, vac’d on other grounds, 347 Or 368 (2009)
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Tyler
To prove that a pedestrian “proceed[ed] along” a roadway within the meaning of ORS 814.070(1), the state must show that the pedestrian’s direction of travel was in a line that is generally parallel to the direction of the roadway where there is an adjacent usable sidewalk or shoulder.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Clark v. Nooth
A determination that the “defendant poses a security concern is necessary before a court requires a defendant to appear in court wearing a restraint, even if the restraint is not visible to the jury.” Sproule v. Coursey, 276 Or App 417, 422, rev den, 359 Or 777 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Coos Waterkeeper v. Port of Coos Bay
Use of the word “project” in ORS 196.825(1) does not require the Department of State Lands to consider post-construction operational effects of a proposed development when determining whether to issue a fill/removal permit in conjunction with that development.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
DeWolf v. Mt. Hood Ski Bowl, LLC
Under ORCP 64(B)(2), a new trial may be granted for misconduct of the prevailing party if that misconduct materially affected the substantial rights of the moving party. D.C. Thompson and Co. v. Hauge, 300 Or 651 (1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Kastle v. Salem Hospital
When faced with a statute of limitations defense, “a complaint does not have to show that the action is timely; it suffices if the complaint does not reveal on its face that the action is not timely.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Heathman Hotel v. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant
A contract term is ambiguous if, when examined in the context of the contract as a whole, including the circumstances under which the contract was formed, it is susceptible to more than one plausible interpretation. Milne v. Milne Construction Co., 207 Or App 382, 388, 142 P3d 475 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Kay v. Employment Dept.
When determining whether a claimant for unemployment benefits had a reasonable alternative to leaving work, the EAB must decide whether that reasonable alternative existed “at the time she left work.”
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Chavez v. State of Oregon
The ability of a petitioner to prevail on a claim for post-conviction relief, based on new constitutional principles, depends on the retroactivity of the federal constitutional principle at work.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Kuhn v. Dept. of Human Services
A service that is provided with the sole objective of assisting a disabled person to function comparably to a nondisabled person qualifies as a social benefit within the meaning of OAR 411-330-0020(81), even if someone else incidentally benefits from the service.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Butler Family LP v. Butler Brothers, LLC
Under Huff v. Duncan, the use of the word “successors” in a lease agreement is not required to evidence an intention that a covenant in the original agreement run with the land; a reference to “assigns” is sufficient to evidence that intention.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Bond
When an indictment alleges the “attempts to use unlawfully against another” variant of unlawful use of a weapon (UUW), and not the alternative and disjunctive “or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another” variant of that offense, failure to merge a count of UUW with a count of first or second-degree assault constitutes plain error.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. K.J.B.
Under State v. Parkins, in close cases, whether an issue has been sufficiently preserved for appeal turns on whether the policies behind the rule, “e.g., procedural fairness to the parties and the trial court, judicial economy, and full development of the record,” have been sufficiently served.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Watts v. Board of Nursing
Under OAR 137-003-0580(9), no express “penalty of perjury” clause is required for an affidavit to be valid.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Osuna-Bonilla v. Teacher Standards and Practices Comm.
Under Reguero v. Teacher Standards and Practices, the Administrative Procedures Act allows hearsay evidence to be admissible as any other evidence, so long as it meets the statutory test of reliability under ORS 183.450(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Wenning
Under ORS 138.060, the State may appeal an order made prior to trial dismissing or setting aside the accusatory instrument, or suppressing the evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Herinckx v. Sanelle
Under Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts any State law that impermissibly connects with ERISA by way of (1) governing a central matter of plan administration, or (2) interfering with nationally uniform plan administration.
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
DiNicola v. Service Employees Int’l Union Local 503
Under ORS 65.224, a non-profit corporation is required to make available to members a list of members’ “names, addresses, and membership dates,” along with the “number of votes each member is entitled to vote at the meeting” if there are classes of members.
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
Kness and Kness
Under ORS 107.137(1), the “best interests” standard requires a court to give weight to the preference of the child’s primary caregiver when determining if a child can move with one parent to a new location.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Wright
When the State advances competing theories of liability on a defendant’s acts as principal or as an aider-and-abettor, a jury must be instructed that at least 10 jurors must agree that the defendant is liable under one theory or the other.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Snyder
Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, to satisfy the automobile exception to the warrant requirement during a search involving a drug-detection dog, the State must prove that the dog’s alert was sufficiently reliable to provide probable cause to search the automobile.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Porter and Porter
Under Rudder and Rudder, the relevant factors to determine whether a prenuptial agreement was voluntarily executed include the proximity of the document’s presentation to the time of the wedding; any surprise in its presentation; the presence or absence of legal counsel; inequality of bargaining power; disclosure of assets; understanding of rights waived; and awareness of the intent of the document.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Presock
A probationer has the right to discovery only for the evidence used against him.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Berg
An appellate court may affirm an erroneous order as harmless error if the alternate argument raised on appeal would have produced a record materially similar to the record produced under the erroneous order.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Rankins
Within the meaning of the Commercial Drug Offense statute, ORS 475.900, the term “records” means “intentionally retained notations” maintained in furtherance of an enterprise conducted over a period of time.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Conrad
A court’s decision to admit evidence after conducting OEC 403 balancing meets the Mayfield requirements even if the court does not expressly follow the Mayfield analysis, so long as the record shows the court considered the substantive matters prescribed in Mayfield.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Ritter
Under ORS 165.800, in order to convert the personal identification of another person to one’s own use via “appropriation,” a Defendant must take, acquire, or claim that personal identification by possessing or controlling it without the consent or permission of the person it identifies.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dayton v. Jordan
Under Cheney v. Mueller, evidence of prior use of real property is one of many factors to be considered in determining whether an implied easement exists, and “cannot of itself establish an easement.”
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Kennison v. Dyke
Under ORS 109.119(3)(b), before granting visitation rights to a person who has an ongoing personal relationship with a child, a court is required to determine whether that person rebutted, by clear and convincing evidence, the statutory presumption found in ORS 109.119(2)(a) that the child’s guardian acted in the best interest of the child in initially denying visitation rights to that person.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Vicente v. Nooth
In order to comply with ORS 138.640(1), a judgment denying claims for post-conviction relief must, at minimum, (1) identify the claims for relief that the court considered and make separate rulings on each claim; (2) declare, with regard to each claim, whether the denial is based on a petitioner’s failure to utilize or follow available state procedures or a failure to establish the merits of the claim; and (3) make the legal bases for denial of relief apparent.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Simmons
A trial court, when faced with a motion for a judgment of acquittal, is required to (1) view disputed facts in the light most favorable to the state, (2) consider all reasonable inferences of guilt and innocence arising from the undisputed facts, and (3) inquire whether “any” rational juror could find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based on consideration of disputed and undisputed facts and the reasonable inferences arising from them.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Gilmour v. Linn County
Under Collins v. Klamath County, a local government’s interpretation of a land use regulation that implements state law is not entitled to deference under ORS 197.829.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Stubblefield
Under State v. Cook, a warrantless search does not violate a defendant’s rights under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution when that defendant’s words or conduct demonstrate abandonment of the searched property.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Clarke
Under State v. Hampton, relevant evidence of motive is admissible to prove a defendant committed the physical element of a charged act if it makes more probable the fact that a defendant physically committed a crime than if such a motive were not established. Under State v. Brock, if the record establishes that a trial court consciously balanced the costs of admitting prior acts evidence against its benefits, there was due process balancing as required by OEC 403.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Allen v. SAIF
Under ORS 656.005(7)(a)(A), in order for a claimant with an injury determined to be a “consequential condition” arising out of an earlier compensable injury to recover, that claimant must prove that the earlier compensable injury was the major contributing cause of the subsequent injury.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Locals 8 & 40 v. Port of Portland
The Employment Relations Board does not have jurisdiction to hear complaints under the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act unless they are based off a public employer's illegal acts.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. F. H.
Under State v. A.D.S., an involuntary civil commitment cannot be based on apprehensions, speculations, and conjecture that an appellant cannot care for his basic needs.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Peper
Under Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co., a mortgage or deed of trust will always be attached to the promissory note that it secures. Under Niday v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, the original lender (or any successor) of a trust deed is the beneficiary, notwithstanding what the trust deed purports to designate.
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. v. Lamb
Upon awarding attorney fees to a claimant under OAR 438-015-0010(4), an Administrative Law Judge or Board is required to explain in its order each of the enumerated factors listed under OAR 438-015-0010(4) as they contribute to the decision to award attorney fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Blair
Under State v. DeLong, the scope of voluntary consent is determined by what a reasonable person would have understood the search to include, given the exchange between the officer and the suspect, in light of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the voluntary consent.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. K.G.A.B.
Under ORS 419B.824(6)(c), DHS may serve a parent or guardian by service of newspaper publication in the county where the action was commenced if DHS shows a written motion and affidavit from which it can be determined that DHS was unable to accomplish service through any other method.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Beltran-Solas
An accused criminal defendant, after being appointed legal counsel under Article 1, Section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, cannot be interrogated about the crime charged without the counsel’s representation.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office v. Edwards
Under ORS 408.230 (the veterans’ preference law), a public employer’s application process for hiring and promotion decisions must utilize a coherent, stable method for giving special consideration to disabled veterans.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. M.L.N.
Under ORS 426.130(1)(a), in order to civilly commit a person, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person is mentally ill.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment