Willamette Law Online

(14 summaries)

Andrew Mackendrick

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. MillerCriminal Law: Judicial review on whether there was probable cause to issue a warrant is limited to a determination of whether the issuing judge could have reasonably concluded the affidavit established probable cause, given the facts and reasonable inferences.(01-16-2013)
State v. ZolotoffCriminal Law: If evidence in the record supports a jury instruction of a lesser-included offense, the State is required to give the instruction to ensure that the jury has a complete statement of the law.(11-21-2012)
Blank v. US Bank of OregonWorkers Compensation: A work related injury is not compensable if it is equally possible that work-related factors or idiopathic factors caused the injury.(09-26-2012)
State v. FullerCriminal Law: The evanescent nature of drugs in a suspect’s body creates an exigent circumstance that will ordinarily permit a warrantless urine sample. However, if a warrant could have been obtained and executed faster than the time it took to process the suspect and obtain a urine sample, the warrantless seizure of that sample is unconstitutional.(09-12-2012)
Halone’s Auto Repair v. B & R Auto WreckingAttorney Fees: When a trial court’s judgment cites multiple authorities for awarding attorney fees, the rejection of one cited basis does not render the trial court’s judgment erroneous.(08-22-2012)
State v. KentoppCriminal Law: A police officer’s reasonable suspicion regarding one crime does not justify the extension of a lawful traffic stop for the purpose of conducting an investigation for an unrelated crime if the officer does not also have reasonable suspicion for that crime.(08-08-2012)
State v. McDanielCriminal Law: Under ORS 161,055(1) the defense of entrapment has two elements that the state must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant did not intend to perform the proscribed conduct, and that the defendant would not have otherwise engaged in the proscribed conduct.(07-25-2012)
State v. Morfin-EstradaCriminal Law: Reasonable suspicion must be based on the totality of the circumstances, and includes an officer’s subjective belief that a person is or was committing a crime, and that the belief is objectively reasonable.(07-11-2012)
State v. HoldorfCriminal Law: In cases involving “reasonable suspicion” there is no bright line rule, and courts must employ an individualized, objective test based on the facts.(06-20-2012)
State v. MorescoCriminal Law: A violation of ORS 162.385, the crime of giving false information to a police officer, requires a showing that the person knowingly gives a fictitious name, address or date of birth to a police officer, and the officer asked for the information for the purpose of arresting the person on a warrant.(06-13-2012)
Trees v. OrdonezTort Law: In medical malpractice cases, expert testimony must not only establish causation, but must also provide evidence of the applicable standard of care customarily used by a reasonably careful practitioner.(05-31-2012)
Kirsch v. Dep’t. of Consumer and Business ServicesAdministrative Law: The Court will overturn an agency order only if the credible evidence apparently weighs overwhelmingly in favor of one finding and the board 'found' the other without providing substantial reason.”(05-09-2012)
Protect Grand Island Farms v. Yamhill CountyLand Use: Under Statewide Planning Goal 5, OAR 660-023-0180(3)(d)(B)(ii), the phrase “average thickness of the aggregate layer within the mining area” is intended to refer to the average depth of all the mineable aggregate within the resource site, regardless of whether that aggregate is physically discontinuous.(04-04-2012)
State v. MillsEvidence: In venue cases, the state may establish venue through circumstantial evidence but the evidence must be substantial enough to prevent the jury from speculating or guesswork.(03-14-2012)