State v. Lipka
“Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it has an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis commonly although not always an emotional one, or when the preferences of the trier of fact are affected by reasons essentially unrelated to the persuasive power of the evidence to establish a fact of consequence.” State v. Lyons, 324 Or 256 P2d 802(1996)
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. B.A.F.
(1) “A trial court is required to advise a person alleged to have a mental illness of all the possible results of the proceeding and failure to do so is plain error. State v. B.A.F., 414 P3d 486 (Or App 2022) (citing State v. M.M., 288 Or App 111, 115-16 (2017)) (emphasis in original) (2) “An appeal from a civil commitment order does not become moot after the expiration of the commitment period.” State v. Van Tassel, 5 Or App 376, 385 (1971)
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. B. A. F.
Pursuant to ORS 425.100(1), during a civil commitment hearing, a person alleged to have a mental illness shall be advised as to the: "reason for being brought before the court"; "nature of the proceedings"; "possible results of the hearing"; "right to subpoena witnesses"; and "the person’s rights regarding representation by counsel."
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Lanier
“Under Pender and Grover, we have held that a question about the unlawful possession of controlled substances is a question that, by its very nature, evidences an investigatory purpose and is therefore ‘designed’ to elicit incriminating information.” State v. Lanier, 290 Ore. App. 8, 15 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Lanier
A question posed by an arresting officer concerning possession of illegal substances is investigatory in nature and requires a Miranda warning. State v. Pender, 181 Or App 559, 562, 47 P3d 63 (2002); State v. Grover, 193 Or App 165, 174, 90 P3d 8 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. McNair
An appellate court must review a denial of a motion for acquittal in order to assess “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. King, 307 Or 332, 339, 768 P2d 391 (1989).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Bates v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co.
The benefits to which an insured is entitled under an insurance policy do not constitute “money or property” within the meaning of Oregon’s financial elder abuse statute, ORS 124.110(1)(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Elder Law
State v. Branch
Under ORS 162.375, a person commits the crime of "initiating a false alarm or report" by making a false allegation of a new criminal matter in response to police questioning.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Cox v. Persson
“A trial court generally has the discretionary authority to reopen a case on remand or otherwise to allow for presentation of additional evidence.” ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire and Casualty Ins., 349 Or 657 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Cox v. Persson
When a case is remanded to retry a particular issue, the lower court has discretionary authority to reopen the record unless stated otherwise.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
- , Evidence; Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Lipka
“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” OEC 403.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Dickson v. TriMet
The time to give notice of intent to file a tort claim begins when a litigant knows the facts of an injury; not when a litigant becomes aware of the legal significance of those facts. Doe v. Lake Oswego School District, 353 Or 321, 297 P3d 1287 (2013) (citing Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or 270, 278, 265 P3d 777 (2011)).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
PIH Beaverton LLC v. Red Shield Insurance Co.
If there is doubt as to whether “allegations of a complaint against the insured state a cause of action that is defined within the coverage of a liability policy sufficient to compel the insurer to defend the action,” the court will resolve the doubt in the insured’s favor. West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, 360 Or 650, 653 (2016); Blohm et al v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 231 Or 410, 415-16 (1962).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
State v. Burnham
Evidence obtained under invalid or overbroad portions of a warrant may be suppressed while evidence obtained under the rest of the warrant may be admissible. State v. Vermaas, 116 Or App 413, 416, 841 P2d 664 (1992), rev den, 316 Or 142 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Van Winkel and Van Winkel
In determining what is just and proper in the distribution of marital assets, the trial court focuses “on equitable considerations, including such matters as . . . the extent to which a party has integrated a separately acquired asset into the common financial affairs of the marital partnership through commingling.” ORS 107.105(1)(f); Kunze and Kunze, 337 Or. 122,135-36, 92 P.3d 100 (2004). “[A]cts of commingling may convert a separately acquired asset into a joint asset of the marital partnership,” Kunze, at 139.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Columbia Pacific v. City of Portland
“Nondiscriminatory local laws that have only ‘incidental’ effects on interstate commerce are valid unless ‘the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.’” Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 US 137, 142, 90 S Ct 844 (1970).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Daniels v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Co.
To invoke the statutory safe harbor protection under ORS 742.061(3) an insurer must have, in writing, “accepted coverage and the only issues are the liability of the underinsured motorist and the damages due the insured.” Additionally, the insurer must have "consented to submit the case to binding arbitration." ORS 742.061(3)(a)-(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Pilling v. Travelers Ins. Co.
“[ . . . ] the association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit creates a partnership, whether or not the person intended to create a partnership.” ORS 67.055.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Rains v. Stayton Builders Mart, Inc.
“When the legislature does not limit the duty that a defendant owes a plaintiff but does limit the size or nature of the remedy, the legislative remedy need not restore all the damages that the plaintiff sustained to pass constitutional muster, . . . but a remedy that is only a paltry fraction of the damages that the plaintiff sustained will unlikely be sufficient.” Quid pro quo and other factors could be used to help in the determination. Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or 168, 220-21,376 P3d 998 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Sharma v. Providence Health & Services-Oregon
Under Hernandez-Nolt v. Washington County, 283 Or App 633, 641, rev den, 361 Or 543 (2017), to succeed on a wrongful discharge claim using a constructive discharge theory, a plaintiff must prove "that the employer’s motive for the constructive discharge was the plaintiff’s exercise of a job-related right or an important public duty."
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Robertson
Under ORS 163.575(1)(b), endangering a minor’s welfare exists when a minor enters or remains in a place where a “principal or substantial use of the place involves unlawful drug activity.” State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 358 OR 451, 473 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. T. W. W.
“Whether a person is a danger to others is determined by his condition at the time of the hearing as understood in the context of his history.” State v. L.R., 283 Or App 618, 625, 391 P3d 880 (2017). In order to authorize involuntary commitment based on a person’s inability to meet his basic needs as a result of a mental disorder, the evidence must show that it is unlikely the person will survive in near short term. State v. S.R., 267 Or App 618, 619, 341 P3d 160 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Urig
“[W]hether an officer unlawfully extends a stop depends on whether the officer makes [an] unrelated inquiry instead of expeditiously proceeding with the steps necessary to complete the stop.” State v. Aung, 265 Or App 374, 379, 335 P3d 351, rev den, 356 Or 575 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure