Willamette Law Online

(31 summaries)

Allie Overton

Oregon Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. BlokAppellate Procedure: The Court may exercise their discretion to dismiss an alternative writ if it is not presented in the relator's brief or petition.(09-20-2012)

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
State v. AndradeSentencing: 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. (04-09-2014)
Cannon v. Dept. of JusticeCivil 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. (03-26-2014)
State v. RichardsonCriminal 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. (02-12-2014)
State v. CainEvidence: 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.(01-23-2014)
State v. EvansEvidence: An exception to OEC 504(2), ORS 419B.040(1) allows for the admissibility of therapists testimony, as long as the testimony references only exculpatory or inculpatory information regarding the abuse of the child in the case being decided. (12-26-2013)
State v. AshcroftCriminal Law: When a trial court properly grants a motion to continue under ORS 135.763(2), after the district attorney receives notice from Defendant requesting a speedy trial under ORS 135.760 to 135.765, the trial court is not required to dismiss the case if time lapsed is greater than 90 days. (12-18-2013)
State v. Watts Evidence: Admission of improper character evidence is not harmless when it relates to a central factual issue at bar.(11-27-2013)
State v. FarokhranyCriminal Procedure: When prosecutors mention rape laws of the Middle East during voir dire in a case where the defendant is a Muslim from the Middle East, the court must grant a curative instruction to ensure the jury does not impermissible consider race and religion during deliberations.(10-23-2013)
Clayton v. DASAdministrative Law: Under ORS 195.318(3)(b), challenges must be preserved in order to be reviewed. (10-02-2013)
State v. BeisserEvidence: Under OEC 404(1), a defendant may introduce evidence of victim's character and victim's prior violent acts against defendant when asserting the affirmative defense of self-defense, and when character is an essential element of the charge, claim or defense.(08-28-2013)
Dept. of Human Services v. J.L.H.Juvenile Law: Under the Indian Child Welfare Act the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the factual basis for terminating parental rights. Additionally, under ORS 419.504, the State must demonstrate the parent's conduct and environmental conditions are seriously detrimental to the child, and will not be resolved within a reasonable period of time. (08-14-2013)
State v. FinlayCriminal Procedure: (1) Under State v. Meharry, Defendant is not required to be driving the vehicle in order for the police to "encounter" the vehicle during a warrantless search. (2) An attached trailer qualifies as a "vehicle" for the purposes of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. (3) Under Meharry, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement permits a warrantless search of a vehicle when the police have probable cause or the vehicle is mobile at the time of the encounter. (07-17-2013)
State v. MaganaCriminal Procedure: All evidence that is derived from a stop, without mitigating circumstances, must be purged from the illegal stop, unless there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before the stop is made. Additionally, all evidence derived from an involuntary search must be suppressed if there are no intervening or mitigating circumstances present. (06-19-2013)
State v. BerthaCriminal Procedure: Mere acquiescence to an officer's command does not amount to consent to search a home without a warrant.(04-24-2013)
Fostveit v. PoplinContract Law: A trial court does not err when it properly weighs the evidence on the record, and find that a party substantially performed on the contract.(03-27-2013)
Cavitt v. CourseyPost-Conviction Relief: Under ORS 138.580, "documentary evidence" is satisfied by an affidavit in support of a Petitioner's claim for post-conviction, and is enough evidence to support a claim for relief in Petitioner's claim for post-conviction relief.(02-06-2013)
Franklin v. Employment Dept.Employment Law: When a claimant, during a negotiated resolution, has agreed to a stipulated order with her employer in which she agrees to a temporary suspension of her license, misconduct has not occurred as defined by ORS 657.610(4). (01-30-2013)
Department of Human Services v. T.H.Juvenile Law: A judgment of the juvenile court is inadequate and not harmless error when the Department of Human Services does not state a compelling reason for the continuation of APPLA.(12-27-2012)
State v. ThompsonCriminal Procedure: When an individual is stopped without a reasonable suspicion, asked for her identification, and questioned without a significant break in time between these events, the stop becomes unlawful and any evidence seized from such an encounter is to be suppressed.(12-19-2012)
State v. KowlaskijCriminal Law: When a person is charged with identity theft under ORS 165.800, the charging document's failure to identify the alleged victim who was injured or who was intended to be injured is not a material variance under ORS 135.725.(12-05-2012)
State v. BarboeCriminal Law: Under ORS 161.155, Oregon does not recognize the aid-and-abet theory when the Defendant did not plan or commit the crime in question.(11-07-2012)
State v. KaylorCriminal Law: Under ORS 163.205(1)(a), criminal mistreatment in the first degree, an offender must affirmatively withhold something from the victim for it to be considered first-degree criminal mistreatment. Secondly, under ORS 162.285(1)(a), tampering with a witness, a defendant must reasonably and specifically believe that the victim will be called to testify at an official proceeding at the time the statements were made.(10-17-2012)
State v. NicholsEvidence: Under OEC 702, an expert's testimony, if believed, must be of help or assistance to the jury. When the expert fails to show a connection between the opinion and the testimony to the facts, then the court may use it's discretion to exclude it.(08-29-2012)
State v. ThompsonCriminal Law: Because venue is a material allegation that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, a defendant can not be convicted of failure to register as a sex offender under ORS 131.325 if there is no direct evidence to prove defendant's location after the ten-day time period expired.(08-08-2012)
State v. GrahamCriminal Law: A release agreement is sufficient evidence to prove knowledge of all trial and required court appearances. Also, when a defendant files a motion for judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence he must state the specific theory on which the proof is insufficient.(07-18-2012)
State v. Ibarra-RuizEvidence: When a party makes an objection, his explantion of his position must be specific enough to give enough clarity to the court to identify its alleged error and to allow it to consider and correct the error immediatly, if needed.(06-27-2012)
State v. MartinezSentencing: In absence of any evidence on the record to support a particular amount awarded for restitution, the Court can exercise its discretion to correct the plain error.(06-06-2012)
Berg and BergFamily Law: ORS 107.105(1) requires that the division of marital property be "just and proper in all circumstances," Spousal support awards should be based on the trial court's discretion and supported by evidence in the record.(05-16-2012)
State v. OnishchenkoEvidence: In order to establish the amount of a compensatory fine, the market value of a chattel may be ascertained through the testimony of the owner, unless it is shown that the owner does not have knowledge of the market value of the item.(04-25-2012)
State v. AlonzoCriminal Procedure: Under ORCP 59 H(1), there are two situations that bar appellate review if the party does not preserve its objection: (1) An erroneous instruction from the trial court; and (2) Refusing to deliver a parties’ requested instruction.(03-28-2012)