H. K. v. Spine Surgery Center of Eugene
If another employee’s behavior creates a hostile working environment, an employee must prove that the employer “knew or should have known” of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action. Garcez v. Freightliner Corp., 188 Or App 397, 410 (2003). However, when the actor is the employer, “liability is direct, and there is no burden to separately prove the employer’s knowledge.” Schram v. Albertson’s, Inc., 146 Or App 415, (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
State v. Brown
The reckless driving statute provides: “A person commits the offense of reckless driving if the person recklessly drives a vehicle upon a highway * * * in a manner that endangers the safety of persons or property.” ORS 811.140(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Odneal
“[T]he state may prove ‘a defendant’s knowledge with circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences flowing from that evidence,' ” the inference that is made “must be one that a rational factfinder can be convinced follows beyond a reasonable doubt from the underlying facts.” State v. Bell, 220 Or App 266, 270, 185 P3d 541 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell
In determining the circumstances in which one’s use of another’s property gives rise to a prescriptive easement, any subjective misunderstanding does not affect the "presumption of adversity" in regards to the private or public nature of the property, which should be determined by the “objectively observable acts of the user and rightful owner.”
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Durham v. Laney
In order to “support a claim for medical habeas relief,” a prisoner must allege facts which show that he or she “has a serious medical need that has not been treated in a timely and proper manner and that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs.” Billings v. Gates, 323 Or 167, 180-81, 916 P2d 291 (1996).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
State v. Kyger
When a person takes “a substantial step toward murder of more than one person” during a single criminal episode, but is unsuccessful in killing anyone, that person has committed the crime of attempted aggravated murder. State v. Quintero, 110 Or App 247, 256-257, 823 P2d 981 (1991), modified on other grounds on recons, 114 Or App 142, 834 P2d 496 (1992), rev den, 314 Or 392 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Boswell v. State of Oregon
To demonstrate inadequate assistance of counsel under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, Petitioner must prove (1) that trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and (2) that Petitioner suffered prejudice as a result. Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Cerner Middle East Limited v. Belbadi Enterprises LLC
"A court of this state having jurisdiction of the subject matter has jurisdiction over a party served in an action pursuant to Rule 7 under any of the following circumstances. . . [i]n any action, whether arising within or without this state, against a defendant who when the action is commenced. . . [i]s a corporation created by or under the laws of this state." ORCP 4(A)(3).
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Johnston v. Gordon Trucking-Heartland Express
"The worker must prove that employment conditions were the major contributing cause of the disease." ORS 656.802 (2)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
State v. Chittenden
“Knowing the identity of and the information to be provided by a witness to or a victim of a crime is as fundamental to our criminal justice system as is apprehension of a potential offender.” State v. Fair, 353 Or. 588 (2013). Additionally, reasonable suspicion that suspects are involved in illegal drug activity warrants further investigation. State v. Acuna, 264 Or. App. 158, 168-69 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Hopkins
The circumstances of a case will support the inference that when a victim reacts against a defendant, the victim impliedly revokes the defendant’s permission to remain on the premises. State v. Felt, 108 Or. App. 730, 733 (1991).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Kelly
The State has the burden of showing that, in the officer’s subjective belief, getting a warrant was unreasonable due to dissipating evidence and that belief is objectively reasonable, rooted in the officer’s “contemporaneous perspective based on information known or reasonably discernible in the totality of the circumstance.” Martinez-Alvarez, 245 Or. App. 369, 376, 263 P.3d 1091 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Torres v. Persson
“To obtain relief on a claim of inadequate assistance of counsel, petitioner must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that petitioner's trial counsel did not exercise the professional skill and judgment required by Article I, Section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and that petitioner suffered prejudice as a result."
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Waste Not of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County
Uses "may be approved only where the local governing body or its designee finds that the use will not: (a) Force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; or (b) Significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use." ORS 215.296(1)
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Berger v. Safeco Ins. Co.
ORS 742.061(3) only disqualifies a defendant from the fee exemption if the defendant raises “issues” outside the scope of the safe harbor. Robinson v. Tri-Met, 277 Or App 60, 72, 370 P3d 864 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 886 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Hollister
ORS 33.460 provides a legal "change of sex” is appropriate when an applicant can “attest” that they have received “treatment” that is fitting “for the purpose of affirming gender identity.”
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
LNV Corp. v. Fauley
Under ORS 18.948(2), “an objector to an execution sale of real property” must establish that: (1) the sale was “not conducted in the manner” prescribed by law and (2) “that as a result” the objector “suffered damage.” Further, a trial court’s confirmation order under ORS 18.948 is appealable.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Lycette v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
Whether an attorney engaged in “deliberate misconduct” within the context of ORS 20.125 is a factual determination that will be reviewed “for any evidence in the record.” Unless the court reviewing the award finds an abuse of discretion, it will not modify the trial court’s decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Owen v. City of Portland
"A state statute will displace the local rule where the text, context, and legislative history of the statute ‘unambiguously expresses an intention to preclude local governments from regulating in the same area as that governed by the statute.” Gunderson, LLC v. City of Portland, 352 Or 648, 663, 290 P3d 803 (2012)
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. DeJong
“[I]n suppression hearings involving a search pursuant to a warrant allegedly tainted by earlier police illegality, the defendant bears the initial burden of production, while the state bears the ultimate burden of persuasion.” State v. James, 339 Or. 476, 490 (2005). Consequently, a defendant has the initial burden to establish a factual nexus between the prior illegal conduct by the police and evidence gained prior to a valid warrant. State v. Johnson, 334 Or. 511(2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Perez-Cardenas
Reconsideration of a claim may be sought when “there has been a change in the statutes or case law since the decision of the Court of Appeals.” ORAP 6.25(1)(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Savage
"Where a previous judgment of acquittal was based upon a general verdict, as is usually the case, this approach requires a court to ‘examine the record of a prior proceeding, taking into account the pleadings, evidence, charge, and other relevant matter, and conclude whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration.’ The inquiry ‘must be set in a practical frame and viewed with an eye to all the circumstances of the proceedings.’ ” State v. Mozorosky, 277 Or 493, 498 (1977) (quoting Ashe v. Swenson, 397 US 436, 444 (1970)) (internal citations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Shepherd
When there is evidence of a witness’s relationship with another person where the bias resulting from the relationship is a matter of reasonable inference rather than mere speculation, the party may impeach that witness for bias. State v. Naudain, 300 Or. App. 222, 230 (2019). An error is reversible “if it denies the jury an adequate opportunity to assess the credibility of a witness whose credibility is important to the outcome of the trial.” State v. Andrew, 297 Or. App. 299, 300 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Vergara v. Patel
“If a plaintiff states a name other than defendant’s, but serves the correct entity with a copy of the original complaint, and the correct entity should have understood from the pleadings that it is the entity intended to be sued, then an amendment of the pleadings to correct the misnomer….is not a change in party.” Harmon v. Fred Meyer, 146 Or App 295, 298, 933 P2d 361 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Chang v. Chun
The tort of trespass is considered strict-liability and occurs when a person intentionally goes on another’s land. Berschauer v. State Dept. of Gen. Admin., 1 Wash App 2d 1044, 2017 WL 6343652 (2017). It follows that if damages occur from the emotional distress one suffers as a result of trespass, one may recover under trespass damages. Id. at 7.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Kamps-Hughes v. City of Eugene
Once certain factors have been met, ORS 197.312(5)(a) requires “the development of at least one [ADU] for each detached single family dwelling,” hindered only by sitting and design specific regulations.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Stachlowski v. 1000 Broadway Building LP
Under ORS 130.640(1), “a trustee is entitled to trustee fees paid ‘out of trust property for [e]expenses that were properly incurred in the administration of the trust.”
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
State v. Alatorre
“[T]he existence of valid third-party consent depends either on the third party’s common authority over the property based on her or his own property interest." State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475, 486 (2015)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Boekelheide
“[T]he court will refuse to adopt the meaning that would lead to an absurd result that in inconsistent with the apparent policy of the legislation as a whole.” State v. Vasquez-Rubio, 323 Or 275, 283, 917 P2d 494 (1996).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Bunch
For purposes of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, a disclaimer of ownership of an item may—but does not necessarily—demonstrate an abandonment of all constitutionally protected interests in the item.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Guzman-Vera
"[W]illfulness can be shown through proof that the defendant knew about the order but chose to ignore it, and then failed to comply with the order’s requirements in that state of elective ignorance: 'A party cannot ignore a court order and then claim that the act of ignoring it is not willful.'" Dept. of Rev. v. Carpet Warehouse, 296 Or 400, 407, 676 P2d 299 (1984); see Pamplin v. Victoria, 138 Or App 563, 566-67, 909 P2d 1245.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
State v. H.K.D.S.
Article I, Section 9 establishes the right “to be secure in [our] persons…against unreasonable search, or seizure,” and case law further establishes that “warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless they fall within one of the few specifically established and limited exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Biss, 363 Or 426, 430-1, 326 P3d 559 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Lynch
Under Article I, section 42, of the Oregon Constitution, “a victim may not be granted restitution if that would result in a reduction of the criminal defendant’s rights afforded by the federal constitution.” State v. Barrett, 350 Or 390, 255 P3d 472 (2011). Because a defendant relinquishes many important constitutional rights when he elects to resolve his case by plea, it would be “fundamentally unfair to deprive [him] of the benefit of the bargain struck.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Martinez
“Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, unless the state establishes the applicability of an exception;” an exception to warrantless searches are “(1) to protect a police officer’s safety; (2) to prevent destruction of evidence; or (3) to discover evidence of the crime of arrest.” State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475, 480, 366 P3d 331 (2015); State v. Delfino, 281 Or App 725, 727, 386 P3d 133 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 525 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Ramirez
In order to overcome a warrantless search on the officer safety exception, the state must prove that an officer’s subjective safety threats are objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. State v. Hendricks, 213 Or. App. 360, 364, 160 P.3d 1014, rev den, 343 Or. 467 (2007).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure