Couey v. Clarno
ORS 250.048(10) restricts conduct, not expression, and therefore is not subject to a challenge for facial invalidity under Article I, sections 8 and 26
State v. Moore
For a sentence to be upheld, “[t]he record must affirmatively show that the court sentenced the defendant solely upon the facts of the case and his personal history, and not as punishment for his refusal to plead guilty.” State v. Fitzgibbon, 114 Or. App. 581, 587, 839 P.2d 154 (1992) (citing State v. Smith, 52 Or. App. 681, 629 P.2d 420 (1981)).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Music
"Article I, section 11, enumerates a number of rights that attach '[i]n all criminal prosecutions.' Among those rights is that the accused is entitled 'to be heard by himself and counsel.' This court has long held that the right 'to be heard by' oneself includes the right to self-representation at trial." State v. Hightower, 361 Or 412, 416 (2017)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Aguilar v. Badger
“[T]he rationale for the change-in-circumstances rule is that, unless the parent who seeks a change in custody establishes that the facts that formed the basis for the prior custody determination have changed materially by the time of the modification hearing, the prior adjudication is preclusive with respect to the issue of the best interests of the child under the extant facts.” State ex rel Johnson v. Bail, 325 Or 392, 397, 938 P2d 209 (1997)
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Arrowood Indemnity Co V. Fasching
The business records exception to the rule against hearsay extends to "[a] memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the source of information or the method of circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness." Rule 803(6) (ORS 40.460).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Ghiglieri v. Tomalak
To determine if reasonable necessity for an implied easement exists, the court is to consider “what a reasonable grantee would be justified in expecting as a part of his bargain when he purchases land under the particular circumstances.” Dressler et al v. Isaacs et al, 217 Or. 586, 598-599, 343 P.2d 714 (1959).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Oregon AFSCME Council 75 v. OJD - Yamhill County
Under ORS 243.650(1), the Employment Relation Board (ERB) may certify a labor organization as the exclusive representative of a group of public employees if ERB determines that the group would comprise an “appropriate bargaining unit.” That determination requires comparative analysis of the community interest factor in ORS 243.682(1)(a) and, if the record lacks substantial evidence or substantial reason, the Court has discretion to set aside or remand ERB’s order. ORS 183.482(7)(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Partney v. Russell
"A pure easement appurtenant is one where the land of one person, the servient tenement, is subjected to some use or burden for the benefit of the lands of another person, the dominant tenement." Bloomfield v. Weakland, 224 Or App 433, 445 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Bates
[U]nder ORS 163.684, “the legislature intended a visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child to be synonymous with “a visual recording that depicts a child in an act of sexually explicit conduct.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. M. C. D.
In order to continue an involuntary commitment, the State must show that a person will be put at a “nonspeculative risk of serious physical harm” due to an inability to “provide for his or her basic personal needs” if released. State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 240, 448 P3d 656 (2019). Neither homelessness nor a likely inability to obtain or prepare food is sufficient to support continued commitment. State v. C. M. C., 301 Or App 206, 213, 454 P3d 30 (2019); State v. S. T., 294 Or App 683, 685-87, 432 P3d 378 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Montiel-Delvalle
To determine whether a defendant manifested an intention to relinquish a constitutionally protected interest in property, courts will consider six factors set in State v. Ipsen, 288 Or App 395, 406 P3d 105 (2017). To defeat a motion to suppress, a defendant’s relinquishment of constitutionally protected rights in property need not be permanent.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Sanchez-Cacatzun
Under Article VII (Amended), section 3, of the Oregon Constitution, an appellate court must affirm a conviction, notwithstanding any error, if there is “little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict.” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Mata v. Dept. of Transportation
"An agency conducting a contested case hearing may modify a finding of historical fact made by the administrative law judge assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings only if the agency determines that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record that the finding was wrong. For the purposes of this section, an administrative law judge makes a finding of historical fact if the administrative law judge determines that an event did or did not occur in the past or that a circumstance or status did or did not exist either before the hearing or at the time of the hearing." ORS 183.650(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Nichols v. Persson
For state claims, when claimants assert counsel’s investigation was inadequate, prejudice means that there is “more than a mere possibility” that a “reasonable investigation” would have yielded a different result at trial. See Richardson v. Belleque, 362 Or 236, 268 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Parsons
Under Ramos, the damage caused by a defendant and thus would be applied in a restitution award to the plaintiff, would need to be a “reasonable foreseeable” consequence of the defendant’s actions. State v. Ramos, 358 Or. 581, 596-597, 368 P.3d 446 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
WaterWatch of Oregon v. Water Resources Department
Under ORS 543A.305(8), “’use under a hydroelectric water right’ is not limited to the use of water for hydroelectric purposes but encompasses other beneficial uses authorized by a hydroelectric water right, including in-stream use under a lease of that right.”
Area(s) of Law:- Water Rights
Dept. of Human Services v. K. H. H.
The interpretation of “reasonable time” is evaluated as a matter of law and thus must be looked at for abuse of discretion. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. D.J., 215 Or. App. 146, 154-155, 168 P.3d 798 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Jackson v. Franke
An attorney will not be found to be constitutionally inadequate and ineffective if there is an unforeseeable shift in the case law.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Barton
"When the same conduct or criminal episode violates two or more statutory provisions and each provision requires proof of an element that the others do not, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are separate statutory violations." ORS 161.067(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Perdew
In order for a court to award restitution, there must be evidence that shows that “medical expenses were ‘necessarily incurred.’” ORS 31.710(2)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Zachery
"When a criminal episode violates only one statutory provision and involves only one victim, repeated violations are separately punishable if they are separated from other such violations by a sufficient pause in the defendant’s criminal conduct to afford the defendant an opportunity to renounce the criminal intent.” ORS 161.067(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Fields
“Serious physical injury” means physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Rolfe
In Oregon, two situations require a concurrence instruction: (1) “when a statute defines one crime but specifies alternative ways in which that crime can be committed” and (2) “when the indictment charges a single violation of a crime but the evidence permits the jury to find multiple, separate occurrences of that crime.” State v. Pipkin, 354 Or 513, 516-17, 316 P3d 255 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Stalking Protective Order