Willamette Law Online

(11 summaries)

Matthew Lawrence

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. WatsonCriminal Procedure: When officers detain a person for violating a traffic law, it is reasonable to determine whether the person is licensed to continue on his or her way after the encounter ends unless the detention becomes unreasonably lengthy.(07-05-2013)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Fox v. Employment DepartmentEmployment 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.(03-12-2014)
State v. Clemente-PerezCriminal 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.(02-20-2014)
Dept. of Human Services v. R. L. F.Juvenile Law: ORS 419B.100 provides that jurisdiction over a child is appropriate when there is a current, non-speculative threat to the welfare of the child. (12-18-2013)
State v. StewartCriminal Procedure: Upon review of a judgment of acquittal, the court looks at the facts, in a light most favorable to the respondent, to determines if any reasonable trier of facts could find that the essential elements were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (11-27-2013)
State v. TidwellCriminal Procedure: Upon a showing that consolidation would cause substantial prejudice, the court will sever the multiple counts.(10-30-2013)
State v. CoughlinPost-Conviction Relief: A charge of contempt of court is considered neither a conviction nor an offense for purposes setting aside a past conviction under ORS 137.225(1). (10-09-2013)
Hale v. BellequePost-Conviction Relief: If an issue was not raised before the post-conviction court it cannot be considered on appeal. In addition it is sufficient to establish prejudice in the context of post-conviction relief if there is uncertainty regarding what elements were agreed to and use by the jury.(09-25-2013)
Dept. of Human Services v. C. J. T.Juvenile Law: Juvenile jurisdiction over a child may be established when the court has sufficient evidence linking past conditions or circumstances endangering the welfare of the child to a current threat of harm to the child. (08-14-2013)
Rivas v. PerssonPost-Conviction Relief: Credit for time served has no bearing on when an inmate will be released after the release date has passed. Instead, the ultimate release date is determined exclusively through the parole consideration process.(05-30-2013)
Dept. of Human Services v. A. J. MJuvenile Law: Under ORS 419B.923(1)(a), a juvenile court has the authority to issue a “corrected permanency judgment” if the correction is for an oversight or omission. In addition, the court has authority to correct the judgement at any time. (05-15-2013)