Dept. of Human Services v. L.A.K.
Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), jurisdiction over a child by the juvenile court will continue if the basis for jurisdiction “continue[s] to pose a current threat of serious loss or injury, and there [is] a reasonable likelihood that the threat will be realized.” Dept. of Human Services v. J. V.-G., 277 Or App 201, 212 (2016). Furthermore, at the time the “basis for jurisdiction has ceased to exist, then the juvenile court must terminate wardship and dismiss the case.” State v. A. L. M., 232 Or App 13, 16 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Rider v. Carranza
"We ascertain the legislature’s intentions by examining the text of the statute in its context, along with any relevant legislative history, and, if necessary, canons of construction.” State v. Cloutier, 351 Or 68, 75, 261 P3d 1234 (2011) (citing State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-73, 206 P3d 1042 (2009)).
Area(s) of Law:- Landlord Tenant
Cargal and Long-Cargal
“A spousal support award may be modified when there has been a substantial and unanticipated change in the parties’ economic circumstances since the time of the earlier award” and whether it is "just and equitable, under the totality of circumstances.” Harp and Harp, 214 Or App 520, 523-24, 167 P3d 457 (2007). In weighing a party’s capacity to meet the demands of a support award, the court may consider what a party is currently being given, earning capacities, and prospective future earnings. Id.; see also ORS 107.135(4)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Garland and Garland
Under ORS 165.540, for a residence exception to apply to the evidence the “location of the performance of the act of recording” must take place inside the home. See State v. Rainey, 294 Or App 284, 288-90 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Linn County
Under Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247, 262, 243 P3d 776 (2010), LUBA is required “to defer to the county’s plausible interpretations of its own comprehensive plan.”
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Rookstool-Moden Realty, LLC v. Gallagher
“To preserve an argument in a bench trial that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, a party is required to move for a judgment of dismissal under ORCP 54 B(2) or make ‘a timely equivalent assertion.’” Marshall v. Cannady, 291 Or App 802, 808, 423 P3d 143 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Frick
A trial court errs when it imposes fines or fees in a written judgment that it did not include at the sentencing hearing. State v. Toombs, 302 Or App 173, 174, 460 P3d 533 (2020). Payment of fines or fees is allowed during a period of imprisonment if the court finds that the defendant has assets to pay the amounts; the defendant may challenge this finding in the trial court. ORS 161.675(1); State v. Ciraulo, 301 Or App 849, 459 P3d 960 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Gutierrez
Under the Sixth Amendment, hearsay statements that are testimonial in nature are prohibited unless the person who made the statement is unavailable and the defendant previously had an opportunity to cross-examine the person. Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 (2004). The curative admissibility doctrine allows one party to counter inadmissible testimony elicited by the other party by introducing its own otherwise inadmissible testimony. State v. Apodaca, 291 Or App 268, 274-75, 420 P3d 670 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Silver
"In addition to and not in lieu of any other sentence it may impose, a court may require a defendant convicted under ORS 167.315 to 167.333, 167.340, 167.355 or 167.365 to forfeit any rights of the defendant in the animal subjected to the violation, and to repay the reasonable costs incurred by a government agency, a humane investigation agency or its agent or a person prior to judgment in caring for each animal associated with the criminal proceeding." ORS 167.350(1) (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Wildlife Law
Davis v. Cain
“In general, witness vouching in Oregon is considered prejudicial, so much so in fact that it sometimes requires intervention by the trial court even when parties fail to object to it.” State v. Sperou, 365 Or 121, 140, 442 P3d 581 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Green Thumb Landscape and Maintenance v. BOLI
Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), the Court will review the Bureau of Labor and Industries' (BOLI’s) "factual findings for substantial evidence." The Court "does not reweigh the evidence or 'examine the record to determine whether evidence supports a view of the facts different from those found by the agency.'" Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office v. Edwards, 361 Or 761, 776, 399 P3d 969 (2017). "Rather, an agency’s findings of fact are binding on [the court] unless those findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record viewed as a whole. Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
J. C. R. v. McNulty
"[W]hen conduct is expressive, the Supreme Court has held that the Oregon Constitution requires a “communication that instills in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, is unequivocal, and is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts.” J. C. R. v. McNulty, 304 Or App 286, 291 (quoting State v. Rangel, 328 OR 294, 303, 977 P2d 379 (1999)).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order
McMillan v. Kelly
Under Oregon law, a defendant may only be convicted as an accomplice to a crime the defendant has the specific intent to facilitate, assist, or promote; the defendant may not be convicted of every crime which is a natural and probable consequence to the specific crime. Specific intent is required for conviction based on accomplice liability. State v. Lopez-Minjarez, 350 Or 576, 582, 260 P3d 439 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Edwards
A lawful arrest does not, in and of itself, allow for the lawful exploratory seizure of all personal property on the arrestee’s person. The fact of arrest authorizes the seizure of limited categories of personal effects related to the probable cause for the arrest and even more limited categories of unrelated effects.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. McCray
“If an officer threatens only to do something that the officer is legally permitted to do, the coercion caused by the threat is not constitutionally objectionable.” State v. Hirsch, 267 Or 613, 622, (1974). “In determining whether a defendant was involuntarily induced to give consent by a promise of leniency, the court considers whether the defendant reasonably understood that a promise of leniency was made and reasonably relied on the promise of leniency to give consent. State v. Marshall, 254 Or App 419, 432-33 (2013).”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Sunderman
“[E]vidence of a person’s past or even routine drug use, without additional evidence, does not give rise to the reasonable inference that the person currently possesses drugs.” State v. Oller, 277 Or App 529, 538, 371 P3d 1268 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
City of Corvallis v. State of Oregon
ORS 222.127, which allows a city’s legislative body to annex certain territory within its boundary “without submitting the proposal to the electors of the city” if specific conditions are met, does not violate the “home rule” provisions of the Oregon Constitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Municipal Law
Coleman v. SAIF
Under ORS 656.267(1), a new medical condition claim can be initiated “at any time,” hindered by ORS 656.267(2)(a) which states: only properly initiated claims “related to an initially accepted claim” are subject to the time restraints of ORS 656.262. When new medical condition claims are instituted before the first claim has been accepted, the procedure for those additional claims is “just like any other claim,” which means the 60 day turn around does not apply. Johansen v. SAIF, 158 Or. App. 672, 681, 976 P.2d 84, adh’d to on recons, 160 Or. App. 579, 987 P.2d 524, rev den, 329 Or 527 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Department of Human Services v. M. T. J.
"[T]he juvenile court 'cannot simply ignore' serious parental deficiencies' that become apparent during a permanency hearing but that were not the basis upon which jurisdiction was sought." Dept. of Human Services v. N. M. S., 246 Or App 284, 297-98, 266 P3d 107 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dep’t of Human Services v. A.J.G.
"[I]n order to justify continued jurisdiction, the department has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that conditions or circumstances related to father's conduct or condition give rise to a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child." In re T.P., 255 Or App 51, 56 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Kerr v. Board of Psychologist Examiners
“Voluntary disclosure of privileged material does not waive the privilege if the disclosure is itself privileged.” State v. Bassine, 188 Or App 228, 233, 71 P3d 72 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
SAIF v. Williams
“[T]o prove the existence and compensability of a new or omitted medical condition, the claimant must prove that his or her injury was the “material contributing cause” of the disability or need for treatment of the new or omitted condition. Schleiss v. SAIF, 354 Or 637, 643-44 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Carrillo
The authority of third-party consent to a search “rests . . . on mutual use of the property by persons, generally having joint access or control for most purposes . . . it is reasonable to recognize that any of the coinhabitants has the right to permit the inspection[.]” State v. Jenkins, 179 Or App 92, 101, 39 P3d 868 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. De Verteuil
"Hall 'subsequently limited the reasoning in Barber . . . to personal effects, such as household furniture' and Barber’s reasoning is 'limited to situations where fair market value is not equivalent to just compensation for the loss incurred.'" Hayes Oyster Co., 170 Or App at 227-28.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Foss-Vigil
“[A] circuit court obtains jurisdiction to try or convict a defendant in a felony case only upon issuance of an indictment, an information supported by a probable-cause determination made following preliminary hearing, or the defendant’s knowing waiver of indictment or preliminary hearing.” Keys, 302 Or App at 523-24. “[I]n the absence of indictment, preliminary hearing, or waiver, the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to try the defendant and any judgment rendered in that case is void.” Id. at 524.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Gatto
The standard to discern whether all privacy interests subject to Article I, section 9, have been given up is “whether the defendant’s statements and conduct demonstrated that he [or she] relinquished all constitutionally protected interests in the articles of property.” State v. Cook, 332 Or. 601, 608, 34 P.3d 156 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Spencer
Under OEC 901, the approach to establishing authenticity for recordings is flexible and depends on the circumstances presented and the nature of the proffered evidence. See State v. Sassarini, 300 Or App 106, 452 P3d 457 (2019). In assessing whether a proponent presented a prima facie case of authenticity, a court considers traditional factors rather than strict requirements.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Waters v. Kippel Water Inc.
Under ORS 20.105(1) "a trial court shall award reasonable attorney fees to a party who prevails against a claim if the court determines that there 'was no objectively reasonable basis for asserting the claim.'"
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Lacey v. Saunders
“Against such party’s personal representative or successors in interest unless the personal representative or successors in interest mail or deliver notice including the information required by ORS 115.003 (3) to the claimant or to the claimant’s attorney if the claimant is known to be represented, and the claimant or his attorney fails to move the court to substitute the personal representative or successors in interest within 30 days of mailing or delivery.” ORCP 34B(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State/Klamath County v. Hershey
An animal forfeiture claim is most akin to a lien foreclosure claim in general, which was not entitled to a jury trial at the time of the adoption of the Oregon Constitution, and does not include the kind of fact-finding that would customarily be tried to a jury.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Altamirano-Juarez
When a judge considers a waiver of a defendant’s right to a jury trial, they must consider “whether a bench trial will fully protect defendant’s rights.” State v. Austin, 274 Or App 114, 119, 360 P3d 603 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Clifton
Under ORS 164.015, “A person commits theft when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate property to the person or to a third person, the person: (1) Takes, appropriates, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof[.]"
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Johnson
"If a defendant requires a continuance to adequately prepare a defense and would be prejudiced by a denial, then a trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion for continuance." State v. Hickey, 79 Or App 200 (1986)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Lobue
The rationale concerning probation revocation does not extend to confrontation rights in sentencing. See United States v. Littlesun, 444 F3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir 2006). The personal liberty interests at stake in a probation revocation proceeding are not implicated in setting restitution as a part of sentencing. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482-83 (1972).
State v. Rhamy
"[D]etermination of the reliability of the child victim’s testimony and statements—and, in particular, how various questioning or interviewing techniques call the reliability of that evidence into question—is a matter for the trier of fact at trial, not a matter to be determined by the court in a pretrial hearing." State v. Kelly, 244 Or App 105, 109-110, 260 P3d 551 (2011); State v. Bumgarner, 219 Or App 617, 632-34, 184 P3d 1143, rev den, 345 Or 175 (2008), cert den, 555 US 1101, adh’d to as modified on recons, 229 Or App 92, 209 P3d 857 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Stowell
“[I]f the state seeks to hold a defendant liable either as the principal or as an aider and abettor and if a party requests an appropriate instruction, the trial court should instruct the jury that at least 10 jurors must agree on each legislatively defined element necessary to find the defendant liable under one theory or the other.” State v. Phillips, 354 Or 598, 606 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Walker
Under ORS 135.715, an error in an accusatory instrument does not require dismissal of charges unless the error would "prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits.”
Area(s) of Law:- Traffic Infractions
Towner v. Silverton Health
Under Eads v. Borman, the elements of actual agency are that “the principle ha[s] a right to control the acts of its agent,” and “both parties must also agree that the agent will act on the principal’s behalf.” Eads v. Borman, 234 Or App 324, 227 P3d 826 (2010), aff’d, 351 Or 729, 277 P3d 503 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law