Davis and Davis
Under ORS 107.105, if the property at issue is a personal injury settlement, the equal contribution presumption is overcome when the injured spouse can prove that the other spouse did not have a part in the settlement and failed to claim damages for consortium.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co.
Under ORS 742.524(1)(a), personal injury protection (PIP) medical benefits do not include a covered individual’s transportation costs incurred when attending medical appointments or obtaining medication.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. J.M.M.
Mere presence during the planning and commission of a crime, or acquiescence alone, is insufficient to find a defendant guilty of aiding and abetting a crime under ORS 161.155(2)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Velykoretskykh
Notice of suspension, like a return of service, was not testimonial.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Young
Even if the officer-safety exception justifies initial seizure, once passengers are seated on the curb and backup has arrived, there’s no plausible reason why safety concerns would require reentry to the vehicle or removal of property.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Neidhart v. Page
Notwithstanding any acceptance of partial payment, even if the right to terminate tenancy is waived based on nonpayment of rent a subsequent default gives new ground to terminate the tenancy.
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Smith v. Board of Parole
Neither due process nor Oregon's APA require parole consideration hearings under ORS 144.228 to allow subpoenas for witnesses at the hearing.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Smith v. Mills
There is no Oregon statutory entitlement (under ORS 144.315, ORS 183.413, and ORS 183.445), or Constitutional entitlement (under Oregon Constitution Article 1, section 10, or the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution) to subpoena witnesses for parole consideration hearings.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State ex rel Stewart v. City of Salem
Under ORS 34.210(2), a trial court has discretion to award attorney fees to a “prevailing party” and may consider the entirety of the circumstances of the litigation when determining whether to award attorney fees on remand. Additionally, the trial court has discretion to determine the reasonableness of a party’s legal position under ORS 20.075(1)(b) and may consider the totality of the circumstances of litigation under ORS 20.075(1)(e) prior to awarding attorney fees on remand.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Baucum
OEC 702, and State v. O’Key require that scientific evidence presented by an expert be generally accepted, peer reviewed, with an acceptable error rate and variability, and retrograde extrapolation satisfies all of these requirements.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Heilman
Under Article I, sec. 9, of the Oregon Constitution, facts as perceived by an officer that do not constitute a violation of the law do not give rise to probable cause.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. J. C. N.-V.
Under 419C.349(3), a juvenile defendant may be waived into circuit court and tried as an adult when the defendant is aware of the nature, degree of participation, and consequences of the alleged criminal act.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Lee
Based on the text, context, and legislative history of the term "tampering," for the purposes of ORS 164.345(1), to "tamper" requires conduct that alters, rearranges, or changes property in a way that has an adverse effect on the property or its use.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Nistler
Under ORS 131.125(8), the statute of limitations for aggravated first-degree theft is three years, unless a theory of continuing criminal action is set forth in the indictment, which may toll the statute of limitations.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Slatton
ORS 164.055(1)(a) and (d) are not separate statutory provisions for the purposes of merging convictions.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Sundberg
Under OEC 401, an explanation as to why an alleged victim may have described her anatomy inconsistently is relevant explain her testimony.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. T.C.
For a court to grant conditional release from an involuntary-commitment order, that the committed person must prove that the conditional release would be in their best interest, and that they would be adequately supervised by an able caretaker.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Urbaschak
Erroneously admitted evidence that is not cumulative and relates to a central disputed issue is not harmless error.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Vukanovich v. Kine
In regards to a Judgment Not Withstanding the Verdict, the Court will look to see if there is any evidence to support the jury’s verdict. If there is, the JNOV will not be sustained.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Ross Bros. & Co., Inc.
When a party does not file an amended answer to an amended complaint, and fails to raise substantive legal arguments at trial, then they have not preserved those substantive legal arguments for appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Baker v. Premo
Trial counsel agreeing to change the terms of a plea agreement in such a way that increases the total sentence is not enough to prove constitutionally inadequate assistance of counsel if the sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Dept. of Human Services v. A.L.
Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), parents entrusting the primary care of their children with paternal grandparents who do not pose a current threat is not a basis for asserting jurisdiction over children.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Baiz
When a car is parked, immobile, and unoccupied at the time of a police encounter, then the car is not “mobile”, as required by the automobile exception to the warrant requirement for a police search.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Gibson
Probable cause has two aspects: the officer must subjectively believe that a crime has been committed, and that belief must be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The facts that determine whether there is objective probable cause are the facts known by the arresting officer at the time of the arrest.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Kirkland
A trial court may conduct additional fact-finding relevant to the amount of a restitution during the sentencing phase of trial. However, a defendant can only be required to pay restitution for conduct which he was convicted of or admitted to doing.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Wade v. Brockamp
Failure of counsel to object to a faulty jury instruction may prejudice defendant and suffice to prove ineffective assistance of counsel.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief