Blachana, LLC v. BOLI
If a party requests reconsideration of an opinion published by the Court of Appeals based on an erroneous factual finding, the Court will review its decision, and, if necessary, modify its opinion. The Court will then adhere to its opinion as modified.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
R.M.C. v. Zekan
Under ORS 30.866(1), a stalking protective order is obtainable only where a petitioner can show that the respondent's conduct causes the petitioner to fear for personal safety.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Johnson & Johnson
Under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, a material risk that a product has a latent defect is exactly the kind of inherent feature of a product implicated. The risk itself is a "fact" for the purposes of the UTPA, and its nondisclosure is actionable.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Davenport
A typographical error did not affect the Court’s reasoning or disposition; therefore, reconsideration was allowed to correct the error and the opinion was adhered to as modified.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Jesse
Under OEC 702, where a defendant offers expert testimony that explains a connection between the defendant’s behavior and the expert’s opinion of the defendant’s mental health issues, the evidence could help the jury assess the defendant’s behavior and should not be excluded on the basis of a lack of nexus.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
7455 Incorporated v. Tuala Northwest, LLC
A third party does not have standing to bring a prescriptive easement claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Loucks v. Beaver Valley's Back Yard Garden Products
Under ORS 652.150, an employer is not required to pay a penalty for failure to timely pay unpaid wages to the estate of a deceased employee, because ORS 652.150 merely applies employers who fail to timely pay employees who have quit.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Rowen v. Gonenne
Trial court in medical malpractice case acted properly when it: (1) included a study presented to a center’s quality management committee, as it was not a written report “to a peer review body”; (2) excluded a 2010 study because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, as it contained information not available to Defendants in 2009; and (3) permitted Defendants to question Plaintiff’s surgeon about the circumstances of unrelated surgeries because it was relevant to establish causation.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
State v. Abbott
A witness, expert or otherwise, may not give an opinion on whether he believes a another witness is telling the truth. This general prohibition against asking one witness to comment on the credibility of another applies on cross-examination where a prosecutor asks a criminal defendant whether a law enforcement officer is lying.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Febuary
The doctrine of "presumption of vindictiveness" only applies when a criminal defendant is resentenced to a longer or otherwise more severe total sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Jones
A trial court’s error in excluding evidence in a criminal trial is harmless if, based on other, properly allowed evidence, the judgment rendered would be the same as if the questioned evidence were excluded. A trial court’s error in sentencing is harmless if the ultimate sentence is lawful and error has no practical effect on a criminal defendant.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Morgan
Under ORS 164.405(1)(b), to qualify as “another person actually present”, that person does not need to know that a crime has been committed or intend to aid a defendant in commission of that crime. Rather, the person must merely be in proximity to the victim to be an added threat.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Navaie
A trial court may rely on circumstantial evidence when determining whether evidence is hearsay or not hearsay (statement of party opponent) in an OEC 104(1) hearing. Proponents of disputed evidence does not need to show that the testifying witness personally witnessed the party making the statement.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Satterfield
A defendant having “good reason to know” is insufficient to convict the defendant of theft by receiving, ORS 164.095(1), which, as interpreted by State v. Korelis, requires actual knowledge or belief that property was stolen.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Sherman
A passenger is not automatically seized during a traffic stop and the determination of his seizure is whether there was a significant “show of authority” by the police. Moreover, while voluntary consent given by the defendant is an important consideration, it does not cure any unlawful conduct committed by the police. The voluntary consent should be reviewed alongside “the nature of the unlawful [police] conduct, including its purpose and flagrancy, the temporal proximity between the unlawful conduct and consent, and the presence of intervening or mitigating circumstances.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Wohrman v. Rogers
ORS 63.165 grants limited immunity from personal liability to members of an LLC for obligations undertaken by the LLC, even where the LLC is administratively dissolved and the obligation does not arise from business activities to wind up or liquidate the LLC's business.
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Dept. of Human Services v. J. R.
A parent's alcohol abuse may be a sufficient basis for the juvenile court to assert jurisdiction, where the totality of the circumstances pose a "serious threat of loss or injury."
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dudrov v. State of Oregon
ORS 138.640(1) imposes a clear-statement rule on judgments in post-conviction proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Gonzales v. Taylor
Under ORS 138.640 and Datt v. Hill, a judgment in a post-conviction relief proceeding must clearly state the grounds on which the matter was decided, and whether the matter presented a state or federal question. A “clear statement” must (1) identify the claims on which a petitioner asked for relief and make a separate ruling on each claim, (2) state whether each claim for relief is procedurally or legally insufficient, and (3) make apparent the legal basis for denial of relief by identifying each element the court determines a petitioner did not meet.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Handy v. Lane County
Under ORS 192.690, to "meet" means something less restrictive than just contemporaneous meetings. The determinative factors for whether a violation of the Public Meetings Law has occurred is whether a sufficient number of officials are involved, what they discuss, and the purpose for which they discuss it.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
SAIF v. Bales
ORS 656.386(1)(a) requires the insurer to pay the claimant’s attorney fees in various circumstances, including when the insurer denies a claim for compensation and the claimant’s attorney is instrumental in obtaining rescission of the denial.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Sate v. Nesbit
Under ORS 137.717(1)(a)(A) (2009), where an indictment contains multiple counts of similar conduct, before a court can use the sentence for one count as a “previous conviction” for purposes of sentencing for the other counts, the State bears the burden to prove that the counts could be tried separately without violating double jeopardy principles.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Smith v. Dept. of Corrections
In notice and comment rulemaking, complaints against a fiscal impact statement may only be considered if they show how the fiscal impact of the rule would affect factors not considered by the agency promulgating a rule.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Soderstrom v. Premo
Under ORS 138.640 and Datt v. Hill, a judgment in a post-conviction relief proceeding must clearly state the grounds on which the matter was decided. A “clear statement” must (1) identify the claims on which a petitioner asked for relief and make a separate ruling on each claim, (2) state whether each claim for relief is procedurally or legally insufficient, and (3) make apparent the legal basis for denial of relief by identifying each element the court determines a petitioner did not meet.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Betcher
Oregon's non-vouching rule prohibits the admission at trial of evidence of one witness's opinion about another witness's credibility expert or otherwise.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Crummett
If charges are properly joined, the party seeking severance of those charges bears the burden of showing that the joinder will effectuate substantial prejudice to the defendant and the court is not to presume it. The party must be specific in demonstrating how the joinder will lead to prejudice and the arguments must relate to specific facts of the defendant’s case.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Flagg
A court may not impose attorney fees on a criminal defendant without discussion of the defendant's ability to pay those fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Furrillo
Under the automobile exception to a warranted search, a backpack of a passenger can be included as a container that can be searched if the backpack is in the vehicle at the time probable cause for the search arose.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Graham
A court may not impose attorney fees on a criminal defendant without discussion of the defendant's ability to pay those fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Romero
Under ORS 138.692 and State v. Johnson, when making a motion for DNA testing after conviction, a defendant must (1) include an affidavit asserting his innocence, identifying the evidence to be tested and putting forth a theory of defense that the DNA testing would support, and (2) make a prima facie showing of actual innocence that is more than a mere assertion of innocence.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Saranpaa
The rial court erred when it imposed attorney fees on Defendants in the written judgment but not during Defendants’ hearings.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Scruggs
A strip search culminating in a highly intrusive search into a suspect's genital or anal areas is justifiable under the search incident to arrest exception only where the search is reasonable in time, scope, and intensity.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Steele
Under Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, a police officer must have a "reasonable suspicion," which may include "reasonable safety concerns," to conduct a pat-down search during an investigation.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law