Boardmaster Corp. v. Glass
ORS 479.820 does not allow a county to disconnect electrical service because a failure to obtain a permit is not necessarily a failure to comply with minimum safety standards. Therefore, a grant of summary judgment for a malpractice claim based on a contrary understanding of that statute is inappropriate.
Area(s) of Law:- Professional Responsibility
Dept. of Human Services v. C.A.
Evidence of substance abuse by a parent, and that parent's lack of sole custody, are not sufficient to prove that a child's circumstances and conditions present a non-speculative risk to the child's safety.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. J.C.H.
The Court did not reach the question of whether Father would be deprived of constitutionally sufficient notice if DHS terminated parental rights based on different grounds from those upon which DHS originally established jurisdiction. Instead, the Court found that DHS had proven some of the original allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Affirmed.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dept. of Human Services v. J.L.M.
Generalized assumptions about a mother's narcolepsy and father's alleged methamphetamine abuse are insufficient evidence for a juvenile court to assert jurisdiction over a child.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. K. M. J.
Under ORS 419B.923(1)(b), the concept of excusable neglect encompasses 'a parent’s reasonable, good faith mistake as to the time or place of a dependency proceeding.'
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dept. of Human Services v. M.P.P.
Termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence that it is warranted by both the conduct of the parent and the best interests of the child.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Durette v. Virgil
Under OEC 401, if experts in a field typically rely on studying photographs and particular statistical data, then that methodology of analysis will be sufficient to avoid excluding the testimony. An expert may be qualified to testify to scientific evidence under OEC 702, even where that expert is unlicensed by the applicable regulatory body.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Hartwell v. Board of Parole
According to OAR 255-30-025(4), a prisoner does not have to choose between an assistant and another person speaking on their behalf at an exit interview hearing if the prisoner needs assistance communicating to the Board.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Luton v. Willamette Valley Rehabilitation Center
A diagnosed medical condition arising out of workplace exposure is properly analyzed as an occupational disease rather than a workplace injury, if the onset of the particular condition, rather than the specific symptoms, arises over a gradual period of time.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
S. J. R. v. King
Under ORS 30.866(1)(a) a person seeking a stalking protective order must show evidence of two or more qualifying contacts.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
Smith v. Board of Parole
Administrative rules OAR 255-030-0025 and OAR 255-030-0026 are valid in accordance with the policies of the Board of Parole.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Smith v. OHSU Hospital and CLinic
ORS 30.275(9) does not bar application of ORS 12.160 (2005) to OTCA claims, because ORS 12.160 does not provide a limitation on the commencement of an action but instead provides for tolling the time allowed for the commencement of an action.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Brown
Other acts evidence that is offered for non-propensity purposes—i.e., to prove motive, intent, identity, or lack of mistake or accident—generally will be admissible as long as the particular facts of the case do not demonstrate a risk of unfair prejudice that outweighs the probative value of the evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Cox
After the state urged the jury to use character evidence and inflammatory facts not in evidence to find Defendant guilty of the charged crimes, the trial court’s jury instruction that the jury could not consider character traits unrelated to the charged crimes, without identifying those traits, was insufficient to cure the prejudice to Defendant.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Horner
A reviewing court may only review an unpreserved assignment of error as one “apparent on the record” if (1) the error is of law; (2) it is not in reasonable dispute; and (3) if the error is contained in the four corners of the record such that the court need not choose between possible inferences to find it.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. McKee
When a property owner manifests and intention to exclude the public from private property outside the curtilage of a residence, a police officer may only enter the property with a warrant or under an exception to the warrant requirement; mere reasonable suspicion a crime is being committed is not enough.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Nacoste
A criminal Defendant may cross-examine a testifying alleged victim concerning the victim's juvenile adjudication history if used to show bias or motive in the alleged victim's reporting or to show victim's attempt to curry favor with prosecution.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Thoens v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Oregon
The plaintiff should be allowed the opportunity by the court to present evidence as to whether the motorist was underinsured.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Yoshida's, Inc. v. Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue LLP
Under ORS 36.222, email communications are confidential and protected from admission as evidence unless an exception applies. Additionally, where no material distinction is made between an equivalent Wisconsin statute, and the mediation communications arose out of a Wisconsin case, ORS 36.222 is properly applied to prevent admission of the email communications.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Dept. of Human Services v. D.M.H.
In order to establish continuing jurisdiction over the wardship of a child, the trial court asserting jurisdiction must show through facts in the record that, at the time of the hearing, the child's circumstances and conditions give rise to a current and continuing threat of harm.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Estate of Michelle Schwartz v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc.
The United States Supreme Court has identified three guideposts to determine whether a punitive damages award violates due process: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s action; (2) the disparity between the actual harm caused by the conduct and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages award and the civil and/or criminal penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Fine and Fine
The trial court has discretion in determining what property division is "just and proper in all circumstances," unless the trial court has "misapplied the statutory and equitable considerations that ORS 107.105(1)(f) requires."
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Southcentral Association of Neighbors v. City of Salem
Adjacent parcels under common ownership are not necessarily one development, and therefore one "lot," simply because they are owned by the same entity for the purposes of applying Salem Revised Code 130.270.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Brown
A trial court’s judgment assessing fees for court-appointed attorney services must be supported with evidence in the record that the defendant “is or may be” able to pay the fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Dept. of Human Services v. B. M. C.
In a dependency proceeding, where DHS is dismissed as a party through a guardianship judgment, DHS may not move to set aside that agreement because they lack standing to do so.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. K. L.
ORS 419B.823 and 419B.824 are modeled after ORCP 7 D, and require that parties to a dependency proceeding receive notice reasonably calculated under the factual circumstances to apprise them of the action and afford the opportunity to present objections.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Edwards v. Board of Parole
Under ORS 144.125(3), Parole Board may delay a prisoner's release date upon a finding that a prisoner has a "present severe emotional disturbance," even if the statutorily required psychological evaluation found to the contrary, so long as the Board's decision was based on substantial evidence in the report.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Johnson & Lechman-Su, PC v. Sternberg
Issue preclusion may not be used against a party in a current proceeding where the issue was not fully litigated due to the prior case being reversed and remanded on appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Rivas v. Board of Parole
A constitutionally adequate parole-exit interview conducted pursuant to ORS 144.125(3) does not include the right to call witnesses or cross-examine people who provided information to the board to be constitutionally adequate.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Sanchez v. State of Oregon
In a petition for post-conviction relief, a trial court has broad discretion in its control of court proceedings. Abuse of this discretion can only be found in instances where the control of the court proceedings was deemed to have been applied in a manner which prejudiced the petitioner.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Sather v. SAIF
The Workers' Compensation Board must determine whether an otherwise compensable injury, not the accepted conditions, has ceased to be the major contributing cause of the worker's disability or need for treatment for an accepted combined condition.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Booth
Evidence obtained during an unlawfully extended traffic stop is inadmissible.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Holland
Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, police searches of peer-to-peer file sharing sites is not an illegal search and does not violate a defendant's rights.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. McNally
Jury instructions are to be granted if there is a evidence to support it and if the proposed instruction accurately states the law.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. S.A.N.
Under ORS 426.005(1)(e), where the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a person is dangerous to others due to a mental disorder, a judgment of involuntary commitment must be reversed.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Dentel
For there to be plain error on the record,the error must be (1) one of law; (2) obvious and not reasonably in dispute; and (3) revealed on the face of the record, so that the court does not need to go outside the record to find error, and the facts constituting the error are irrefutable.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Abraham v. Board of Parole
Under ORS 144.335(1), when a person aggrieved by a board order fails to timely seek judicial review of the order, and subsequently seeks reconsideration, any denial of review is not a final order for the purpose of judicial review.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dept. of Human Services v. D.L.O.
A six-month time lapse between evidentiary proceedings and a judgment asserting jurisdiction over juveniles may raise a question of fact sufficient to show that,at the time of the judgment, the children's welfare may not be endangered by their conditions and circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. D.L.O.
A six-month time lapse between evidentiary proceedings and a judgment asserting jurisdiction over juveniles may raise a question of fact sufficient to show that,at the time of the judgment, the children's welfare may not be endangered by their conditions and circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Hucke v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.
Under ORS 86.722, a correction deed that sets aside a trustee's deed is meant to serve as a step in unwinding a foreclosure sale, and does not unilaterally reverse the sale. Transfers of promissory notes do not have to be recorded before nonjudicial foreclosure sales can proceed.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Lewis v. Board of Parole
Under ORS 144.335(1), an agency's denial of a petition for reconsideration of a final order is not itself a final order for purposes of judicial review.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Maney v. Board of Parole
The process for a murder review hearing by the Board of Parole under ORS 163.105 satisfies the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Burt
Where a trial court sentences a defendant to a certain number of months in prison and a certain number of months of post-prison supervision, but gives credit for "time actually served," that sentence is unlawfully indeterminate for failure to state the length of the incarceration and the post-prison supervision.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Carter
If a trial court's sentence exceeds the statutory maximum sentence, the Court of Appeals may exercise its discretion to remand for resentencing if the record does not indicate that the trial court will, for certain, impose the same sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Garcia
A criminal defendant may not be ordered to pay court-appointed attorney fees absent a determination that the defendant has the ability to pay them.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. McHenry
To support probable cause for entering a house without a warrant, the officer must have some evidence that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed. In the context of furnishing alcohol to minors, the officer must know more than the facts that there is a party and minors have alcohol in order to have probable cause to enter a house.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Nickerson
A mere discussion of Defendant's ability to have a job is insufficient to conclude Defendant's ability to pay court-appointed attorney fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Spencer
A conviction under ORS 166.610 and ORS 161.270 for felon in possession of a firearm with a firearm may not be sustained if the defendant's felony has been reduced to a misdemeanor at the time of the conviction under ORS 166.610 and ORS 161.270.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. DCBS
Under Oregon common law, issue preclusion applies where an issue of ultimate fact essential to the decision arises in a subsequent proceeding that was determined by a valid and final judgment in a prior proceeding between the same parties.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure