Willamette Law Online

(18 summaries)

Prabhpreet Sangha

Oregon Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
DCBS v. MuliroInsurance Law: An injured worker seeking supplemental disability has the burden of satisfying the requirements of ORS 656.210(2)(b); when the worker does not provide the necessary information, the entity responsible for processing the claim is not obligated to independently seek that information out.(12-10-2014)
State v. JamesCriminal Law: It must be shown that Defendant controlled the supply of alcohol that minors consumed to sustain a conviction for furnishing alcohol to minors. (10-29-2014)
State v. ParkerCriminal Law: The guiding principle in determining whether an encounter is a constitutionally significant seizure is whether the officer had manifested a “show of authority” that intentionally and significantly restricts an individuals’ liberty.(10-15-2014)
State v. TruongEvidence: The party offering the scientific evidence at issue has the burden of establishing that it is scientifically valid. (10-01-2014)
State v. Purrier Evidence: The jury’s task is to weigh evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses and the reliability of their testimony, and to resolve conflicts in the evidence. (09-24-2014)
State v. DavisCriminal Procedure: Crimes which occur at different times do not merge if there has been the opportunity to renounce criminal intent. (09-10-2014)
Romayor v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards Employment Law: Retroactive application of a rule is not automatically impermissible, and the question is one of intent of the agency.(08-20-2014)
State v. ThompsonCriminal Procedure: Whether a seizure has occurred is a fact specific inquiry into the totality of the circumstance of a particular case; the state has the burden of justifying a warrantless seizure of evidence, and that the seizure was not the fruit of an unlawful stop. (08-13-2014)
State v. ShipeEvidence: Evidence must be legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant "knowingly" acted; there must not be too great an inferential leap. (07-23-2014)
State v. ClineCriminal Law: An officer's act of directing a person to alter the person's course of travel or to otherwise direct the person's movements may often constitute a "show of authority" that effectuates a seizure, but that is not a per se rule of Oregon constitutional law; instead, the officer's directive must be examined in the context of the encounter in which it was made. (07-16-2014)
State v. Paniagua-MontesEvidence: Under ORS 135.455, if alibi evidence is offered by a witness who is not the defendant, proper notice must be provided; if proper notice is not provided, such evidence must be excluded unless there is good cause.(07-09-2014)
State v. GeorgeCriminal Law: Under ORS 811.540, the term “flee” applies to any instance where an individual knowingly avoids compliance with the requests of a pursuing officer. (06-18-2014)
Dept. of Human Services v. W. A. C.Family Law: To determine whether jurisdiction over a minor is proper, the inquiry is based on “whether, under the totality of circumstance, there is a reasonable likelihood of harm to the welfare of the child.” (06-04-2014)
State v. BrownCriminal Procedure: When an incorrect legal standard is applied to a motion to dismiss in a trial court, and the correct legal standard would require findings of fact not already made, then that decision may be vacated. (05-29-2014)
Yale Holdings, LLC v. Capital One BankProperty Law: Summary judgment is only appropriate when the terms of a deed are unambiguous. (05-21-2014)
Dept. of Human Services v. J. B. V.Family Law: When DHS seeks to change a ward’s permanency plans, DHS must prove that it made reasonable efforts to effect reunification, and that the parent did not make sufficient progress to allow the child’s safe return home, despite DHS's efforts. (05-14-2014)
SAIF v. Carlos-MarciaWorkers Compensation: Diagnostic services related to discovery of the cause of complaints of pain can be reasonable and necessary expenses, even if the results of the testing reveal that the condition was unrelated to the compensable condition. (05-07-2014)
State v. Villanueva-VillanuevaEvidence: In the absence of overwhelming evidence of guilt, erroneously admitted hearsay evidence that significantly reinforces the declarant's testimony at trial constitutes error requiring reversal of the defendant's conviction. (04-30-2014)