State ex rel Willamette Cmty. Hlth. Sols. v. Lane Cty.
Under ORS 215.429(4), either a governing body or a designee may permit or deny a land use permit application. An applicant may not file a mandamus action to compel the government body to act if either the governing body or a designee has responded to the application, even if the response was issued after the 150-day limit.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
State v. Carcamo-Tellez
Pursuant to ORS 137.225 the court must grant a motion to set aside certain convictions unless findings by clear and convincing evidence are made that “granting the motion would not be in the best interests of justice.” Unstipulated information asserted by counsel without any other proof is not considered evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. D.B.L.
An order of civil commitment under ORS 426.130 must be supported by legally sufficient evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. E.K.I.
An order committing a person for not more than 180 days under ORS 426.130 must be supported by legally sufficient evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Sjogren
When stopping a person for trespass, an officer’s reasonable suspicion must be supported by facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize the property was not open to the public.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Smith
"Use" in ORS 166.220(1)(a) includes both the actual use of physical force and the threat of immediate use of physical force.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Stone v. Employment Department
When holding a part time employment position, an employee must continue to actively seek full time employment according to ORS 657.155(1)(c) if the employee wishes to continue to receive unemployment benefits during that time period.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Zimmerman v. LCDC
Under ORS 197.175(1) a city must exercise zoning authority consistent with state statutes and applicable LCDC rules articulating statewide development goals. A city’s efforts to comply with LCDC goals is sufficient where it uses the best available data in creating its economic development plan.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Adams and Adams
Under OAR 137-050-0760, a parent's actual and potential income are the only two things allowed to be considered in determining income for support, not the income of other individuals in the house.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dept. of Human Services v. A. W. (A158694)
A parent’s failure to appear for a status conference does not equate with a parent’s failure to appear for a hearing for a termination of parental rights, and therefore a parent’s failure to appear for a status conference is not grounds for default judgment under ORS 419B.820(7).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. A. W. (A159213)
Cases will be dismissed from the Court of Appeals as moot, even if otherwise justiciable, when the Court’s decision would no longer have a practical effect on or concerning the rights of the parties.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. E. J. E.
Parental rights may be terminated based on unfitness of a parent due to conduct or condition seriously detrimental to the child under ORS 419B.504 where it is in the best interests of the child under ORS 419B.500.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Gonzalez-Aguilera v. Premo
In reviewing a claim for plain error, the Oregon Court of Appeals has the ability to use their discretion to correct the error.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Hall v. State of Oregon
Oregon whistleblower statutes require subjective good faith; an employee may have been wrongfully discharged when he filed a police report against his employer if the filing was objectively reasonable within the circumstances.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
L.D. v. T.J.T.
To support jurisdiction over a 19-year-old adult, it must be proven that the original bases for jurisdiction still pose a current threat of serious loss or injury that is reasonably likely to be realized.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Raymond
Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, an exigent circumstance exists where an officer has probable cause to believe that alcohol and/or a controlled substance will be found in a suspect’s blood or urine.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Walker
Under ORS 151.505 and ORS 161.665, a defendant cannot be ordered to pay court-appointed attorney fees unless the court makes a determination that the defendant is or may be able to pay the fees, and includes evidence on the record as to that determination.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Taylor v. Peters
An Oregon inmate who is incarcerated in Colorado under the Western Interstate Corrections Compact (WICC) properly names the Oregon Department of Corrections as a defendant in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Wieck v. Hostetter
Where the substantial terms of a contract have been agreed on and there is nothing left for future settlement, the fact that the contract has not yet been put into writing does not leave the transaction incomplete and without binding force unless the parties had a positive agreement that it should not be binding until so reduced to writing and formally executed.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Early v. Employment Department
When determining unemployment benefits, employees are not required to have exhausted every single option after every issue in order to show that they left voluntarily but with good cause; the standard is whether a reasonable and prudent person with the same characteristics and qualities as the employee would have considered the situation so grave that he or she had no reasonable alternative but to voluntarily leave work.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Goodman v. SAIF Corp.
Upon review of a denied claim for a new injury based on a combined condition, the Workers Compensation Board must determine whether the new injury has ceased to be a major contributing cause of or need for treatment for the combined condition.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Hardy v. Land Board
Under ORS 274.400 to 274.412 and OAR ch. 141, div. 121, the State may claim ownership of navigable waterways by demonstrating with substantial evidence the use or susceptibility to use of the waterway, or segment thereof, as a highway of commerce at the time of statehood.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Lambert v. Premo
The Court of Appeals will not review an unpreserved request for a delayed appeal where the petitioner, on advice of his attorney, requested relief in the form of remand for a new trial and resentencing rather than for delayed appeal.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Multi/Tech Eng. Svcs. v. Innovative Des. & Constr.
In order to prove a perfected construction lien under ORS 87.010(5), a litigant must show that sufficient notice of the lien rights was provided to the opposing party before foreclosing on that lien.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Severy v. Board of Parole
The Board of Parole must may conduct a hearing, using whatever procedures it deems appropriate, to set each prisoner’s release date according to the matrix in effect when he committed his crime.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Huffman
Motion to suppress evidence was properly denied where, under the specific facts of a traffic stop, Officer had reasonable suspicion that Defendant had committed a drug-related crime.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Kelly
Under ORS 163.575, the evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that children were present at the time alleged illegal activity occurred. Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, an officer may only perform a warrantless search where probable cause exists, such that the arresting officer subjectively believes that it is more likely than not that the suspect committed a crime and if that subjective belief is objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Mross
The standard of determining whether content is a "lewd exhibition" is whether a reasonable fact finder could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the content was created "with the intent of stimulating the lust or sexual desires of the person who views it."
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Zepeda
Pursuant to ORS 161.665(4), the State must bear the burden of proof establishing that the defendant has or might acquire resources to pay for court-appointed attorney fees to be imposed.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Wall Street Management & Capital, Inc. v. Crites
"Where a guarantor signs a guaranty outside the creditor's presence and without having first received a direct request from the creditor asking that the guarantor do so, the guarantor has merely made an offer to the credit to form a contract" and acceptance by the creditor would be necessary to form a contract.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Barrett v. Peters (A155789)
Under the Interstate Corrections Compact (ORS 421.245 to ORS 421.254), a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a plaintiff under Oregon legal custody who is serving a sentence in a Florida prison properly names the Oregon director of the Department of Corrections, and can seek relief from conditions of confinement that are unconstitutional under the Oregon Constitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Barrett v. Peters (A156271)
Individuals who are under the legal custody of the State of Oregon, but are incarcerated in Florida pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact (ORS 421.245 to ORS 421.254), retain the right to seek habeas corpus relief in Oregon for constitutionally deficient conditions of confinement in Florida.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
State v. Heise-Fay
Compelling circumstances are when a suspect is placed in a position that a reasonable person in that position would feel compelled to answer a police officer’s questions. Compelling circumstances are determined through a totality of the circumstances based on a four factor test set forth in State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 641 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. J.S.
ORS 426.005(1)(e)(B) provides that for a person to be involuntarily committed there must be evidence that the person is unable to provide basic personal needs and is not already receiving such care.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Mulvaine
Under the new standard announced in State v. Mills, under Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, the State does not have to prove appropriate venue beyond a reasonable doubt, and a defendant must challenge venue in a pretrial motion.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Nutt
ORS 153.633 provides that up to $60 of fines paid by criminal defendants are allocated to the state; the statute is not intended to impose an additional $60 fine on criminal defendants.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Ramirez-Reyes
Under ORS 151.505(3), a trial court commits plain error by imposing $5,000 in court-appointed attorney fees without considering whether the defendant "is or may be able to pay" the fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Sullivan v. Popoff
An attorney's decision not to raise certain objections does not automatically call into question the reasonable professional skill and judgment of defense counsel under the Oregon Post-Conviction Relief Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure