Amalgamated Transit Union v. TriMet
Collective bargaining agreements “generally are interpreted in the same manner as are other contracts.” OUS v. OPEU, 185 Or App 506, 512, 60 P3d 567 (2002). If a provision is unambiguous, no further analysis is necessary or appropriate, and the court must “give the appropriate effect to the parties’ intentions.” Industra/Matrix Joint Venture v. Pope & Talbot, 341 Or 321, 332, 142 P3d 1044 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Bethlehem Construction, Inc. v. PGE
The parties enter into a continuing contract when “the various items listed in the notice of lien were contemplated by the parties to be considered as part of one continuous contract.” Spaeth v. Becktell, 150 Or 111, 120, 41 P2d 1064 (1935).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Preble v. Centennial School Dist. No. 287
"When confronted with multiple statutes that appear to conflict, courts are obliged to engage in a two part-analysis; [f]irst, they must determine whether there is any way to reconcile the apparent conflict without exceeding the bounds of reasonable construction of the wording of the statutes. . . Second, if such harmonizing is not possible, then the courts must apply established rules of construction that give precedence to one of the conflicting statutes over the other." See, e.g., Powers v. Quigley, 345 Or 432, 438, 198 P3d 919 (2008); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. M. T., 321 Or 419, 426, 899 P2d 1192 (1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Evensen
“The prohibitions in [ORS 165.540(1)(a)-(c)] do not apply to subscribers or members of their family who perform the acts prohibited in subsection (1) of this section in their homes.” ORS 165.540(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. K.R.S.
“ORS 161.067(3) does not refer to ‘crimes’ at all; rather, it refers to criminal conduct. Conduct that is prohibited by criminal statutes, such as the statute defining first-degree sexual abuse, is criminal in nature whether it is an adult who engages in hat conduct or, instead of a juvenile.”
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Semore
“An officer’s subjective belief is objectively reasonable when the officer can point to specific and articulable facts that support a reasonable inference that the defendant has committed or is about to commit the crime that the officer suspects.” State v. Maciel-Figuroa, 361 Or 163, 184, 389 P3d 1121 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Calpine Energy Solutions LLC v. PUC
Pursuant to ORS 757.210, "the PUC ‘may not authorize a rate or schedule of rates that is not fair, just and reasonable.’” ORS 757.210(1)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Coelsch v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.
“We are mindful that, in construing an insurance policy, we are to interpret terms according to what we perceive to be the understanding of the ordinary purchaser of insurance.” Hunters Ridge Condo. Assn. v. Sherwood Crossing, 285 Or App 416, 422, 395 P3d 892 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners
"[T]he present owner of the property is the only person whom a governing body may allow 'to use the property for a use permitted at the time the owner acquired the property.'" Former ORS 197.352(8) (2005)
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Smith v. Department of Corrections
“Policies that merely ‘undertake to explain the necessary requirements of [DOC’s] existing rules’ are not ‘rules’ as defined by ORS 183.310(9).” Smith v. TRCI, 259 Or App 11, 17 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Ames
In determining whether an assignment of error is adequately preserved, a court looks at "whether the policies that underlie the preservation requirement—giving the opposing party a fair opportunity to respond, fostering appellate review through full development of the record, and giving the trial court the opportunity to fully consider and rule in the first instance—have been served in a particular case." State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 340-41, 211 P3d 262 (2009). In assessing a defendant's requested waiver of jury trial, “[a]ll things considered, the paramount consideration remains whether a bench trial will fully protect a defendant’s rights.” State v. Austin, 274 Or App 114, 120, 360 P3d 603 (2015)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Connelly
A UUV conviction will be upheld when “there is evidence of ‘tampering’ and ‘foul play’ that is ‘relevant to defendant’s knowledge’ that [the] [vehicle] was stolen.” State v. Peirce, 296 Or App 829, 838, 440 P3d 98 (2019) (quoting State v. Bell, 220 Or App 226, 271-72, 185 P3d 541 (2008)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Frischman
When one provision of a warrant is determined to be impermissibly overbroad in the context of a motion to suppress, “the impermissibly overbroad portion of the warrant may be excised, and the balance of the warrant upheld and that only those items seized under the invalid portion of the warrant must be suppressed.” State v. Burnham, 289 Or App 783, 785-786, 412 P3d 1233 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Jones
"If a term is used in one section of a statute, but not another, then it is assumed that the legislature intended the term to apply only to the section in which it is used." State v. Bailey, 346 Or 551, 562, 213 P3d 1240 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Waldron
“A trial court may recommend conditions of PPS, but has no statutory authority to impose them.” State v. Reed, 235 Or App 470, 474, 237 P3d 826 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Summit Real Estate Management v. Mid-Century Ins. Co.
“If there is more than one plausible interpretation [of an insurance policy], we examine the word or phrase in the context in which it is used in the policy and the broader context of the policy as a whole.” Bighorn Logging Corp. v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 295 Or App , 828-29, 437 P3d 287 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Aikens v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Reversal and remand are appropriate if "the board's order similarly did not disclose whether the board would have reached the same determination without the erroneous factual finding." See King v. Board of Parole, 283 Or App 689, 694, 389 P3d 1171 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell
“To establish a prescriptive easement, a claimant ‘must establish an open and notorious use of [the owner’s] land adverse to the rights of [the owner’ for a continuous and uninterrupted period of ten years.’” Wels v. Hippe, 360 Or 569, 577, 385 P3d 1028 (2016). The use of property is “adverse” if “inconsistent with the owner’s use of the property or if it is undertaken not in subordination to the rights of the owner.” Id. at 578.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Dept. of Human Services v. M.R.
“To determine whether a child’s absence from a state was temporary, Oregon courts use a ‘totality of the circumstances’ test, which ‘looks at all the surrounding circumstances of a purported temporary absence, including the intent of the parties and duration of absence, to assess whether the absence should be treated as a temporary departure from a putative home state.’” Schwartz and Battini, 289 Or App 332, 342-43 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Estrada v. Federal Express Corp.
“A worker may give notice [of a work-related accident to the employer] within one year after the date of the accident in some circumstances, including when the worker established that he or she had ‘good cause’ for failing to give notice within 90 days.” ORS 656.265(4)(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Miller v. Racing Commission
"Generally, equitable estoppel requires, among other things, a false representation." Day v. Advanced M&D Sales, Inc., 336 Or 511, 518-19, 86 P3d 678 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Cave
Under Baughman, failure to first identify whether the evidence was admissible as propensity or nonpropensity evidence, before concluding the OEC 403 balancing test, requires reversal. State v. Baughman, 361 Or 386, 393 P3d 1132 (2017)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Gale
"[T]he state must first prove that defendant subjectively believed the victim to be under the age of 16. Then, after establishing that belief, the state must prove that the defendant's belief was objectively reasonable. ORS 163.433.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Nosbisch
Under ORS 137.106(5), “[i]f the defendant objects to the imposition, amount or distribution of the restitution, the court shall allow the defendant to be heard on such issue. . . .”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Payton
"'A defendant's intent to commit a crime at the time of an unlawful entry is central to the crime of burglary. Without it a defendant's conduct cannot constitute burglary of any degree; that intent is, in fact, the essence of the offense.'" State v. J.N.S., 258 Or App, 310, 319, 308 P3d 1112 (2013) (quoting State v. Chatelain, 220 Or App 487, 188 P3d 325 (2008)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Sprow
“Evidence commenting on a suspect’s invocation of the right to remain silent or the right to counsel may require a mistrial ‘if it raises the impermissible inference that the defendant did so because he was guilty.’” State v. Hunt, 297 Or App 597, 600-601 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. West
“ORS 166.025 provides that proof of one of the acts specified in ORS 166.025(1)(a) to (f) coupled with proof of one of the alternative mental states specified in ORS 166.025(1) will establish the crime of second-degree disorderly conduct.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Cook
“[W]here the issue is presented, a sentencing court must consider an offender’s intellectual disability in comparing the gravity of the offense and the severity of a mandatory prison sentence on such an offender in a proportionality analysis.” State v. Ryan, 361 Or 602, 620-21, 396 P3d 867 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Haws
Generally, a "criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed in accordance with his or her theory of the case if the instruction correctly states the law and there is evidence to support giving it." State v. Roberts, 293 Or App 340, 341, 427 P3d 1130 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. J. J. S.
ORS 426.095(2)(c) “permits a ‘good cause’ postponement of a commitment hearing past the five-day judicial deadline, [but] that procedure is available only ‘when requested’ by certain parties, and only ‘to allow preparation for the hearing.’” State v. W. B. R., 282 Or App 727, 728, 387 P3d 482 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Newsted
"[E]vidence is sufficient to support a conviction for delivery where it shows that the defendant possessed a controlled substance in an amount inconsistent with personal use and possessed items associated with the delivery of a controlled substance such as . . . cash, or drug records." See, e.g., State v. Fulmer, 105 Or App 334, 336-37, 804 P2d 515 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Wallace v. Holden
"A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum state. Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, depends on an affiliatio[n] between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State’s regulation." Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A., v. Brown, 564 US 915, 919, 131 S Ct 2846, 180 L Ed 2d 796 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure