B. R. v. Department of Human Services
If a trial court allows a parent to appear at the hearing over the telephone, they must allow the parent to participate, including testifying against DHS's case against them.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
C. P. v. Librande
Appellants have the responsibility to provide the appellate court with a sufficient record of the trial court proceeding. Absent a transcript of a trial proceeding, the appellate court may not have enough factual information to judge the appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Department of Human Services v. J. C. H.
On reconsideration, the Court removed reference to one allegation by DHS against a parent that did not support the trial court's jurisdictional decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. J.R.
In order for the juvenile court to assume jurisdiction over a minor, the court must find that there is current serious, nonspeculative threat of harm to the child that is reasonably likely to be realized.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
J.A.W. v. Employment Department
The unemployment insurance extended benefit statutes, ORS 657.321 – 657.329, do not specify a time limitation for filing for extended benefits, and applying the time limitation specified for filing for regular benefits could lead to an inconsistent result where an applicant was unable to file for or ineligible to receive the extended benefits.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
MT & M Gaming, Inc. v. City of Portland
Under ORS 28.020, to seek relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, a plaintiff must establish that his or her rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by the relevant instrument.
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
State v. Adams
Interfering with a peace officer (ORS 162.247) requires proof of defendant’s intent to interfere with officer’s lawful duties respecting a third party.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Austin
Under the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in Harrell/Wilson, a judge’s discretion to consent to a defendant’s Article I, section 11 right to request to waive a jury trial exits primarily to ensure that a defendant’s rights at trial are protected by ensuring the defendant is adequately represented and not improperly influenced. A judge may also consider judicial economy and speed.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Barger
The Court of Appeals has discretion to reverse trial court's imposition of attorney fees where the trial court did not determine the defendant's ability to pay attorney fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Belander
When a person is convicted of a crime that results in economic damages, they can forced to pay restitution, which is a specific amount that equals the full amount of the victim’s economic damages as determined by the court. Economic damages include objectively verifiable monetary losses including reasonable and necessarily incurred costs due to loss of use of property and reasonable costs incurred for repair or for replacement of damaged property, whichever is less.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. Castillo-Lima
A police officer's search of a criminal suspect's pockets must be supported by something more than reasonable suspicion. Further, in making snap decisions in the heat of the moment, police officers are to be granted considerable latitude to take reasonable safety precautions.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. D.Z.
When a trial court's written order is inconsistent with its oral findings, it may be vacated and remanded for entry of a correct written order, where the written form is highly susceptible to clerical error.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Haugen
The Lawson/James framework gives the three requirements for addressing challenges to eyewitness identification reliability.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. McGrattan
A warrantless search may be conducted under the emergency aid doctrine only where entry is necessary to render immediate aid to persons, or to assist persons who have suffered, or who are imminently threatened with suffering, serious physical injury or harm.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Morgan
The automobile exception authorizes warrantless searches when officers have probable cause to search a vehicle that is mobile at the time that the police encounter it in connection with a crime; any search of an automobile that was parked, immobile and unoccupied at the time the police first encountered it in connection with the investigation of a crime must be authorized by a warrant.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Turner
A defendant's motion to sever claims may be denied if crimes against multiple victims are “sufficiently simple and distinct to mitigate the dangers created by joinder"; Court of Appeals may reverse trial court's imposition of attorney fees if the court did not discuss defendant's ability to pay those fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Vennell
For an officer to have reasonable suspicion to conduct a search, the smell of drugs on the suspect can meet the objective prong of the reasonable suspicion test.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Worth
Pursuant to ORS 161.737(1), a dangerous offender’s determinate sentence can be considered a departure sentence which would be governed by the “400%” rule set forth for sentencing purposes in OAR 213-008-0007(3). OAR 213-012-0020(5)’s rules apply to consecutive presumptive sentences. “The ultimate result is that the “shift-to-I” and “200%” rules have no direct application to dangerous offender sentences and are implicated only derivatively if a trial court imposes a dangerous offender determinate term in excess of the guidelines presumptive sentence.”
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Swank v. Terex Utilities, Inc.
Under ORCP 4 D, a trial court has specific jurisdiction over a defendant if there is a nexus between the forum state, that defendant, and the subject matter of the litigation. Under ORCP 4 A, a trial court lacks general jurisdiction over a defendant if the plaintiff fails to show that defendant had “substantial and not isolated” contacts within the forum state.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Blachana, LLC v. BOLI
Article I, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution does not protect coercive speech found to violate ORS 659A.403, 659A.406, and 659A.409.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
AS 2014-11 5W LLC v. Kaplan Landlord, LLC
Under ORCP 47(C), summary judgment is only appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the non-moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. There are no genuine issues of material fact if, when viewing the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no reasonable juror could return a verdict for the non-moving party on the matter of the summary judgment motion.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Eklof v. Steward
Under ORS 138.550(3) it is the petitioner's duty to submit evidence that the grounds for relief asserted could not have been reasonably raised in the original petition.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Hamlin v. PERB
Under ORS 238.465, Public Employee Retirement System participants can have their retirement accounts divided after a judgment to an estate.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State ex rel O'Connor v. Helm / Clackamas County
Where a party files a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel a final order, ORS 34.740 does not require a court grant a motion to amend that effectively converts the petition for a writ of mandamus into a declaratory judgment action.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Kurtz
Under ORS 151.505(3), a defendant pays a court-appointed attorney fee only if they can "or may be able to” pay them. A court lacks authority to impose court-appointed attorney fees unless the court finds on the record that the person is or may be able to pay those costs.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Opitz
An appellate court may reverse judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees if the trial court erred in its assessment of defendant's ability to pay those fees; an appellate court does not have authority to exercise discretion when the trial court refuses to order defendant eligible for sentence modification.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Sanchez
Under Article 1, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, when an individual's right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures is violated, the court must look to the totality of circumstances in determining whether to suppress evidence collected thereafter. An individual’s consent does not automatically break the causal chain between the illegal search and seizure and evidence collected.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Department of Human Services v. K.W.
Under ORS 419B.923(1), the juvenile court has discretion to set aside a default termination of parental rights judgment if it had been entered into improperly, but only under certain circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Rhodes v. U.S. West Coast Taekwondo Assn., Inc.
In a negligence action, a former employer may be liable for harm caused by negligent training and supervision of employees and unsafe operating policies, where by express agreement employees were to be hired by the new employer taking over operations.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Sanger v. Employment Dept.
The Employment Appeals Board is required to review de novo appeals regarding unemployment benefits.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Alexander
For third degree assault, extreme indifference to the value of human life is satisfied by intoxicated driving plus other erratic, reckless conduct that demonstrates a state of mind where an individual cares little about the risk of death of a human being.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Crosswhite
Under ORS 167.325(1), an individual has "custody or control" over an animal if that individual has authority to guide or manage an animal, or direct or restrain the animal.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Gerhardt
When determining whether restitution for a victim arising from criminal conduct of a defendant, the court should look to when the conduct causing restitution owed occurred and whether it is a direct result of the initial criminal conduct and not latter criminal conduct stemming from the initial criminal conduct.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. Mattheisen
Under Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution, officers must give a suspect Miranda warnings when questioning occurs under compelling circumstances. Courts look to four factors to determine whether a situation is compelling: (1) the location of the encounter; (2) the length of the encounter, (3) the amount of pressure exerted on the defendant; and (4) the defendant’s ability to terminate the encounter.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Rodriguez-Moreno
A defendant’s confession that leads to a felony murder conviction is voluntarily given where detectives told Defendant that they needed to know what happened to a child in order for the doctors to treat her, because, given the totality of the circumstances, the detective’s statement did not cultivate coercive circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Sokell
Under ORS 181.805, sexual abuse is defined as “sexual abuse in any degree” as well as “any attempt to commit” sexual abuse in any degree. A sentence’s duration is not “proportioned to the offense” when the length of the sentence would shock the moral sense of a reasonable person under the circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Sullivan
A trial court may not impose restitution arising out of dismissed charges when the defendant did not admit the charged criminal conduct. Under ORS 138.222(5), when a trial court errs in imposing restitution a case may only be remanded if there are permissible alternatives a trial court could adopt upon resentencing.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
State v. Watchman
Under ORS 151.505(3) and ORS 161.665(4), a trial court commits reversible error by imposing attorney fees on a defendant if it does not indicate on the record that the defendant can pay those attorney fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Waters
DEQ's lack of authority to issue a permit is not a valid defense to not owning a permit. Suction dredging does not cause a discharge requiring an NPDES permit.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Emerson v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc.
In determining whether a defendant committed "grossly negligent" conduct, summary judgment is inappropriate where the plaintiff can show that the defendant has acted with indifference to the probable consequences of a dangerous instrumentality, that, with slight diligence should have been observed.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Lucht v. Mulino Hangar Cafe & Roadhouse, LLC
A trial court may not sua sponte dismiss a case where it had set a deadline for resolution but subsequently granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, removing the plaintiff's ability to comply with the deadline.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Oil Re-Refining Co. v. Dept. of Environ. Quality
Under 40 CFR § 263.20(a)(1) or ORS 466.095(1)(c), when charging an entity with a violation of permit regulations regarding the transport and treatment of hazardous waste, the mental state of a charged entity at the time of the violation is irrelevant.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Private Capital Group, LLC v. Harris
Under ORS 18.954, supplemental judgments granting an additional award cannot be ordered after a sheriff’s sale of property at issue. Any additional bid over the award amount must be disbursed.
Area(s) of Law:- Consumer Credit
Schultz v. Franke
To review for attachment under ORS 138.580 plain error applies when the petition meets three requirements: the error is an error of law, the legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and the record is sufficiently well-developed that a court “need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences” to address the error.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Brumbach
To preserve an argument for appeal, “a party must provide the trial court with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Flores-Celestino
Trial court's error in determining its authority to vacate its own judgment not considered sufficiently "obvious" for the purpose of plain error review.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Gordon
Under Art. I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, a traffic stop is unlawful unless the officer has probable cause to believe the driver committed a violation. Probable cause is established where the officer subjectively believes a violation occurred and if that belief is objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Howe
Pursuant to ORS 161.067(3) a defendant's multiple count assault convictions must be merged. To prevent merging, the state must show that there was a sufficient pause in the defendant's conduct to permit an opportunity for defendant to renounce the criminal intent of his conduct, and that, despite this pause, defendant continued to engage in criminal activity.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Murphy
Police officer’s subjective belief that Driver had violated ORS 811.315 (obstructing the flow of traffic) by driving in the left lane at 32 MPH in a 35 MPH zone is objectively unreasonable. Reversed and remanded.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Kiryuta v. Country Preferred Ins. Co.
When a defendant insurance company files a safe-harbor provision but takes steps to pursue litigation outside of damages sought by the plaintiff insured, the safe-harbor provision is nullified.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Scheffel v. Oregon Beta Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity
A fraternity and its local chapter may have a duty to protect social guests against reasonably foreseeable intentional acts of a third party, where the negligence of the local chapter placed a person at an unreasonable risk of intentional criminal conduct and the fraternity may have undertaken supervision and control of the local chapter.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Abram
Under ORS 166.250, a firearm carried in belt holster is not “concealed” and the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not carrying a firearm openly in a belt holster.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Justice
Under ORS 135.432(4), a trial court abuses its discretion by denying a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement which lessens the defendant's charge from a misdemeanor to a violation, when that trial court's decision is based solely on policies prohibiting such practices, and the decision is not granted individualized "due consideration."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Van Patten v. State of Oregon
If the statutory language is plain, a case must be determined according to the terms of the statute; however, where a term is ambiguous the phrases must be determined within the context of the current proceedings. It is unclear where there even exists a Due Process right to privacy, but if such a right exists it must be considered in light of the specific provisions of the challenged act and any intrusions must be weighed against the public interest.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law