Netherton v. Aerotek Inc.
When deciding apportion impairment, the board is not limited to closures. McDermott v. SAIF, 286 Or App 406, 398 P3d 964 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Wright v. PERB
Although ORS 238.450(4) states “that a member is entitled to judicial review under ORS 183.484 of a written decision made by PERS on a disputed benefits computation under ORS 238.450, that provision can confer jurisdiction on a circuit court only if the decision constitutes a ‘final order’ as that term is defined in ORS 183.310(6)(b). See ORS 183.480(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Arlene J. Hurtley v. Chad J. Hurtley
In interpreting the dissolution judgment, we seek to give effect to the intent of the trial court when it entered it. Neal and Neal, 181 Or App 361, 366, 45 P3d 1011 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Fox v. Real Estate Agency
An agency, in this case, the ALJ, can alternate facts determined by another agency when there is clear and convincing evidence that the original finding was wrong. ORS 183.650. When those new findings are challenged in judicial review, the court must not determine whether the evidence supports the alteration of fact, but instead becomes a factfinder itself. ORS 183.650.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Merchants Paper Co. v. Newton
"Under the discovery rule, a legal malpractice claim accrues when a person knows or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should know, that there is a substantial possibility that the person has an actionable injury. Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or 270, 278, 232 P3d 980 (2011)."
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Portfolio Recovery Association v. Sanders
“The threshold question in a choice-of-law problem is whether the laws of the different states actually conflict.” Spirit Partners, LP v. Stoel Rives LLP, 212 Or App 295, 301, 157 P3d 1194 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Howard
When it comes to a restitution award, the State must prove that there were “(1) criminal activities, (2) economic damages, and (3) a causal relationship between the two.” State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App 420 (2015). It is “plain error, in fact—for a trial court to impose restitution based on activities that occurred outside the period of time covered by the defendant’s plea agreement.” State v. Muhammad, 265 Or App 412 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Hudspeth
When deciding whether there is a Confrontation Clause violation, as a general matter, “so long as the defendant is given the full and fair opportunity for cross-examination, a witness’s lack of memory of the statements or of the veracity of the statements does not give rise to a Confrontation Clause violation.” State v. Townsend, 290 Or App 919, 922 417 P3d 571 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Sim
Evidence admitted over a defendant’s OEC 403 objection is not unfairly prejudicial simply because it is harmful to the defense. State v. Shaw, 338 Or 586, 614, 113 P3d 898 (2005). Rather, unfair prejudice in the context of OEC 403 means “’an undue tendency to suggest decisions on an improper basis, commonly although not always an emotional one.’” State v. White, 71 Or App 299, 303, 692 P2d 167 (1984), rev den, 298 Or 705 (1985). “The critical inquiry in deter¬mining whether evidence is unfairly prejudicial is whether the evidence improperly appeals to the preferences of the trier of fact for reasons that are unrelated to the power of the evidence to establish a material fact.” State v. Sewell, 257 Or App 462, 468-69, 307 P3d 464, rev den, 354 Or 389 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Tri-Met v. Walnut Hill, LLC
"'Common ownership’ is not established simply because an LLC owns one parcel and the owners of the LLC own the neighboring parcel.” Dept. of Transportation v. Pilothouse 60, LLC, 220 Or. App. 203, 213, 185, P.3d 487, rev den, 345 Or. 417 (2008).
Dept. of Human Services v. T. F.
“Under ORS 109.751(1), a court can take temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is in the state and is in immediate need of the court’s protection from mistreatment or abuse.” State v. L.P.L.O., 280 Or. App. 292, 306, 381 P.3d 846 (2016). “Temporary emergency jurisdiction is an ‘extraordinary jurisdiction reserved for extraordinary circumstances.’” Id
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Middleton v. Premo
Under ORS 138.550(2), “post-conviction relief is available only if the ground for relief ‘was not asserted and could not reasonably have been asserted in the direct appellate review proceeding.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Ogle v. Nooth
A post-conviction court may grant relief relating to matters that are “within the scope of [the] pleaded claims,” Reynolds v. Lampert, 170 Or App 780, 787, 13 P3d 1038 (2000), or “directly traceable to the allegations of the petition.” Abbott v. Baldwin, 178 Or App 289, 291, 36 P3d 516 (2001), rev den, 334 Or 75, cert den, 537 US 901 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State of Oregon v. Jonathan William Harrell
“In reviewing a trial court’s admission of eyewitness identification evidence, we defer to the court’s findings of fact as long as they are supported by any evidence in the record; we review the trial court’s evidentiary ruling for legal error.” State v. Engle, 278 Or App 54, 55, 373 P3d 1191, rev den, 360 Or 465 (2016)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Bastow
ORS 136.425(2) states that "[A] confession alone is not sufficient to warrant the conviction of the defendant without some other proof that the crime has been committed." However, because a "probation revocation hearing occurs after convictions that result from criminal proceedings" ORS 136.425(2) is not applicable.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Gonzalez
In determining whether a guest has a privacy right when in someone else’s home, “the scope of an invitation to be on or to use property is inherently a fact-based inquiry that is affected by property-law principles.” State v. Howard/Dawson, 342 Or 635, 642, 157 P3d 1189 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. L. O. W.
“The statutory requirement that physicians give notice ‘immediately’ of an involuntary hold, taken together with the requirement that courts commence proceedings ‘immediately’ upon receiving such notice, plainly contemplate that commitment actions must proceed rapidly following the initial deprivation of a person’s liberty, consistent with the extraordinary nature of such a deprivation.” ORS 426.234(2)-(4); cf. also Addington v. Texas, 441 US 418, 425, 99 S. Ct. 1804 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Smith
“Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, two components comprise probable cause: an officer must subjectively believe that a crime has been committed and thus that a person or thing is subject to seizure, and this belief must be objectively reasonable in the circumstances.” State v. Vasquez-Villagomez, 346 Or 12, 23, 203 P3d 193 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Tison
When the trial court’s judgment exceeds the amount allowable by law, the Court is to direct the trial court to impose the proper disposition under law. ORS 138.040.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Werner
Under 813.011(1), the word “convicted” refers to the date of conviction, where its interpretation is supported by Measure 73, which “makes DUII a Class C felony if defendant [was] previously convicted of DUII, or statutory counterpart, at least twice in prior 10 years.” Shilo Inn v. Multnomah County, 334 Or 11 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Aguilar v. State of Oregon
Post-conviction relief is awarded by a court when a petitioner “establish[es] a ‘substantial denial’ of state or federal constitutional right” which would establish the conviction void. ORS 138.530(1)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Air Rescue Systems Corp. v. Lewis
“To establish contempt of court based on ORS 33.015(2)(b), plaintiffs [must] prove that ‘(1) there was a facially valid court order, (2) the defendant knew of the order and (3) the defendant voluntarily failed to comply with the order.’” State v. Graham, 251 Or. App. 217, 220, 284 P.3d 515 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Arms v. SAIF
“Whether for purposes of the compensability of medi¬cal treatment, a claimant’s condition is analyzed as a consequential condition only under ORS 656.245 or as an “ordinary” condition under ORS 656.245 and ORS 656.225 makes little difference; in either case, treatment of the worsened pre-existing condition is compensable if the accepted work injury or its treatment was the major contributing cause of the worsened condition.”
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Brim v. Lewis
Under ORCP 67 F, after an action is commenced, a judgment may be given upon stipulation that may be in writing signed by the parties, their attorneys, or their authorized representatives; or otherwise assented to by all parties in open court.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Department of Human Services v. K.D.S.
Under ORS 419B.918(1) and ORS 419B.918(7), a court may exercise discretion in its decisions, however the court “is obligated to make a record of that exercise” and must “describe the basic reasons for its discretionary decisions” that enables “appellate courts to engage in meaningful review of the court’s exercise of discretion.” Olson and Olson, 218 Or App 1 (2008); State v. Kacin, 237 Or App 66 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Mall v. Horton
“An expert may be qualified under OEC 702 by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” State v. Woodbury, 289 Or App 109, 115, 408 P3d 267 (2017)
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Snook v. Swan
Under ORS 31.150, when a party files a special motion to strike, a two-step burden-shifting process is applied. First, the filing party must have met its burden of showing that the claim arises out of statements or conduct protected by ORS 31.150(2), and second, the party bringing the claim must establish that there is a probability that they will prevail on the claim by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie case.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Spurger v. SAIF
Under OAR 436-035-0019(l)(i), “chronic condition impairment” occurs when a worker is significantly limited in the repetitive use of a body part. “significant impairment” includes those injuries which create important and meaningful limitations on the use of that body part. Godinez v. SAIF, 269 Or App 578, 346 P3d 530 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Gollas-Gomez
Defendants have a constitutional right to an impartial jury. Or Const, Art I, §11; US Cont, Amend VI. Defendants, consistent with the state and federal constitution, have a right to challenge a juror based on “actual bias.” ORCP 57 D(1)(g). Certain views, beliefs, or experiences does not equate to actual bias, but “’out of fact that those views are likely to impair the juror’s performance of his or her duties.’” State v. Barone, 328 Or 68, 78, 969 P2d 1013 (1998). The “totality of the potential juror’s voir dire testimony” must be considered in looking at whether a juror would be impaired to perform his or her duties because of his or her views. State v. Lotches, 331 Or 455, 474, 17 P3d 1045 (2000), cert den, 534 US 833 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Gonzales
In the absence of overwhelming evidence of guilt, courts have held that “where erroneously admitted hearsay evidence significantly reinforces the . . . testimony at trial, the admission of those statement constitutes error requiring reversal of the defendant’s conviction.” State v. Wood, 253 Or App 97, 101, 289 P3d 348 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Harrison
To be a concealed weapon under ORS 166.250(1)(b) “an object need not be completely hidden from view Instead, a weapon may also be ‘concealed’ within the meaning of the statute even if it is recognizable for what it is if there is also evidence of an imperfect attempt to prevent it from being discovered or recognized.” State v. Turner, 221 Or App 621, 627, 191 P3d 697 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Noorzai
“[W]henever a piece of evidence is offered there must be certain minimum assurances that the evidence is what it purports to be, what it is offered as being [,] and what its value depends on.” Legislative Commentary to OEC 901, reprinted in Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Oregon Evidence 901.02, at 947 (6th ed 2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence