Willamette Law Online

(35 summaries)

Brian Harris

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
In re GoffAttorney Fees: A decision of the Oregon State Bar Disciplinary Panel will be upheld if the record clearly and convincingly demonstrates that a violation occurred.(06-14-2012)
Girod v. KrogerBallot Titles: As written, ballot titles must be accurate, state the scope of their effect, and comply with ORS 250.035(2).(02-16-2012)
Rasmussen v. KrogerBallot Titles: The Supreme Court may review a certified ballot title description in order to ensure that it complies with the guidelines of ORS 250.035, concerning definiteness and specificity.(10-06-2011)
State v. DavisEvidence: A defendant may introduce evidence of prior injury to demonstrate the possibility the harm did not occur at the time in question. However, such evidence may only be admitted if valid under OEC 701.(09-22-2011)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Department of Human Services v. K. H.Juvenile Law: No due process violation results when a court limits submission of evidence to an offer of proof, and then decides based on that evidence that a further evidentiary hearing is unnecessary.(04-17-2013)
Dept. of Human Services v. J. F. D.Juvenile Law: Under ORS 419B.340(1), DHS's reasonable efforts at the dispositional stage must be assessed as to each parent.(03-27-2013)
Dept. of Human Services v. A. D.Juvenile Law: A juvenile court's order of adoption rather than reunification will be upheld where it is established on the record that DHS made a reasonable effort at reunification and that the parents will not be able to make the progress necessary in order for the child to be returned to the home in a reasonable amount of time.(03-06-2013)
Garner v. TaylorFamily Law: A trial court cannot, on its own motion, set aside a prior judgment of visitation rights absent extraordinary circumstances.(01-30-2013)
Dept. of Human Services v. C. L.Juvenile Law: Evidence of a mother's physical abuse of her child is admissible for the first time at the hearing when the permanency plan at the time of hearing is APPLA and a change to the plan is being made to adoption, as long as there are procedural safeguards in place.(12-19-2012)
Dept. of Human Services v. M. Q.Juvenile Law: Child endangerment requires conditions that rise to the level of "being threatened with serious loss or injury." The threat must be current to prove the child is endangered.(12-05-2012)
Dept. of Human Services v. C. C.Juvenile Law: Under ORS 419B.340(2), the court shall enter a description of what efforts were made to reunite the family and what could have prevented the separation of the family.(11-07-2012)
Dept. of Human Services v. K. L. W.Family Law: 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.(10-24-2012)
State v. C. S.Appellate Procedure: An issue cannot be raised on appeal that was not preserved at the trial court. Additionally, if an error is reasonably in dispute, it cannot be plain error on the face of the record.(09-26-2012)
State v. FarrarCriminal Law: For reasonable suspicion, an officer must subjectively believe a person has committed a crime and that belief under the totality of the circumstances must be objectively reasonable. In addition, the officer must point to specific facts demonstrating a crime was committed or the person was about to commit a crime.(09-12-2012)
Dept. of Human Services v. D. L. H.Indian Law: Per the Indian Child Welfare Act, a permanency hearing involving a tribal member requires active efforts to reunify the family. Active efforts means the Department of Human Services must actually assist in the reunification process.(08-22-2012)
A. F. v. Oregon Dept. of Human ServicesJuvenile Law: DHS rules require the agency to meet the reasonable cause threshold which mandates that the agency demonstrate that a child is subject to a threat of severe harm, abuse, or neglect before the issuance of any allegations.(08-08-2012)
Dept. of Human Services v. M. R.Civil Procedure: The denial of a motion to unseal records by the trial court is not an error when the records were never sealed to begin with.(07-25-2012)
Dept. of Human Services v. K. M. P.Juvenile Law: A juvenile court may have abused its discretion in terminating parental rights when the parent has missed a hearing due to an excusable mistake and has shown a good faith effort to appear.(07-18-2012)
Dept. of Human Services v. L. G.Juvenile Law: A juvenile court only has jurisdiction over a child as long as the bases for the jurisdiction are currently present.(07-05-2012)
State v. Montoya-FrancoEvidence: Statements translated by interpreters are admissible under the residual hearsay rule if the interpreters are shown to be qualified to translate.(06-27-2012)
American Energy, Inc. v. City of SistersCivil Law: Under section 25 of the Oregon Jobs and Transportation Act, an ordinance is deemed enacted when it is adopted by it's governing body, rather than after it has been referred for a citizen's vote.(05-31-2012)
Nelson v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.Civil Procedure: Under ORCP 71B, a court must have personal jurisdiction over a party in order to render a judgment.(05-02-2012)
State v. DebuiserAppellate Procedure: A court does not commit plain error when a plausible inference can be drawn that an objection was not made for tactical reasons.(04-04-2012)
State v. R. E.Civil Commitment: The test for establishing whether an individual is “dangerous to self” is: 1) the state must demonstrate the person is likely to harm themselves in the near future; and 2) there must be the possibility of actual physical harm.(03-07-2012)
State v. DavisCriminal Procedure: Circumstantial evidence may be used to establish trial venue.(02-23-2012)
Dept. of Human Services v. J. B.Juvenile Law: Paternity over a child is established in ORS 109.070 (1). Moreover, an outdated Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VAP) fails to establish paternity of a parent, and thus is fatal to the parent's effort to become the legal parent.(02-08-2012)
Gambaro v. Dept. of JusticeCivil Procedure: To overcome an adverse ruling on appeal, the appellant must overcome each alternative ground used by the trial court to justify its holding.(01-05-2012)
State v. AnthonyEvidence: A hearsay statement is admissible if (1) the declarant is unavailable, (2) the statement is inculpatory, and (3) there is corroboration of the trustworthiness of the statement.(01-05-2012)
Rushby and RushbyFamily Law: Retirement accounts accrued during marriage shall be construed as martial property, regardless of payout status, for the purposes of marital dissolution.(12-29-2011)
Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. ColeWorkers Compensation: "Regular work" is defined for the purposes of workers' compensation as any work that occurs on a steady, recurring basis, and affords a person their accustomed means. This includes overtime, if it occurred as defined by "regular work."(12-14-2011)
State v. M.W.H.Juvenile Law: Warrantless searches may be justified if there is reasonable suspicion and exigent circumstances.(11-09-2011)
State v. SmithCriminal Law: When a prosecutor makes the decision to aggregate multiple theft offenses into a single charge, the burden is on the defendant to show that the prosecutor's aggregation system lacks sufficient criteria, or that those criteria are not consistently applied.(10-26-2011)
State v. DudleyCriminal Law: A seizure of a person occurs if a law enforcement officer “intentionally and significantly” restricts that person’s movement or if a reasonable person based on the “totality of the circumstances” would believe their movement was restricted.(09-08-2011)
State v. FernandezCriminal Law: The natural and probable consequence jury instruction may prejudice the jury, if the jury could infer without determining intent that one action was the natural and probable consequence of another action.(08-31-2011)
Gemstone Builders, Inc. v. StutzContract Law: Even though the text of a contract was ambiguous as whether binding arbitration was required. The intent of parties could still be ascertained based on the policy goal of arbitration.(08-17-2011)