Dept. of Human Services v. C. W.
To change a permanency plan from reunification to anything else, under ORS 419B.476, DHS must prove by a preponderance of the evidence both: (1) that DHS made "reasonable efforts" to reunify the child with mother; and (2) that, notwithstanding those efforts, mother's progress was not sufficient to allow reunification. Dept. of Human Services v. V. A. R., 301 Ore. App. 565, 567, 456 P3d 681 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Pistol Resources, LLC v. McNeely
The material terms of an easement agreement are explicitly "to obtain the right to use the existing roads and to construct and use roads across lands of the other for forest management purposes and for the purpose of transporting logs and other forest products, agricultural products and minerals" and desired to "grant, one to the other, such rights." Sander v. Nicholson, 306 Ore. App. 167, 174, 473 P3d 1113, rev den, 367 Ore. 290, 476 P.3d 1255 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Pohlman v. Cain
“Preservation principles apply in the context of post-conviction relief and, as a general rule, arguments not made to the post-conviction court in support of a claim will not be considered on appeal.” Hale v. Belleque, 255 Or App 653, 660, 298 P3d 596, adh’d to on recons, 258 Or App 587, 312 P3d 533, rev den, 354 Or 597 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State of Oregon v. Sanchez-Chavez
The “ultimate question” to determine if a consecutive sentence is permitted under ORS 137.123 “is whether the record includes discrete facts supporting an inference that the defendant acted with a willingness to commit multiple offenses.” State v. Tajipour, 299 Or App 219, 450 P3d 523 (2019), rev’don other grounds, 366 Or 551, 466 P3d 58 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
State v. Allen
“In Lawson/James, the court held that the threshold inquiry from Classen—whether there had been suggestive police procedures—was unnecessary as a preliminary and independent inquiry: ‘There is no reason to hinder the analysis of eyewitness reliability with purposeless distinctions between suggestiveness and other sources of unreliability.’” State v. Wesley, 254 Or App 697, 711, 295 P3d 1147, rev den, 354 Or 62 (2013)(quoting Lawson/James, 352 Or at 747).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Farris
A probation condition violates the Oregon Constitution if its terms are not sufficiently explicit to inform those subjects to them as to what conduct will render them in violation of the condition.
Area(s) of Law:- Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
State v. Hollins
Observations by an officer, with articulable, relevant training and experience of a hand-to-hand transaction near a "hot spot" for drug and weapon activity objectively support reasonable suspicion. State v. Walker, 277 Or App. 397, 402, 372 P3d 540, rev den, 360 Or 423 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Lasheski
Post-opinion dismissal motions are disfavored by the court and will be granted only when the appellant presents a compelling reason for dismissal.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Lora
Evidence found during a warrantless search must be obtained in a reasonable manner and as such, evidence found pursuant to an unlawful seizure is inadmissible.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Perez-Salas
Where a building consists of separate units, including but not limited to, separate apartments, offices, or rented rooms, each unit, in addition to being a part of the same building, is a separate building.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Charlton v. Ed Staub And Sons Petroleum, Inc.
“Aid-or-abet liability under ORS 659A.030(1)(g) is no limited to employers and employees. Anyone qualifying as a ‘person’ under ORS 659A.001(9) may be an aider or abettor of an unlawful employment practice in a way that subjects them to liability.” Hernandez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 311 Or App 70, 80-81 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Department of Human Services v. M.O.B.
Under ORS 419B.387, a juvenile court may order a parent to undergo a psychological evaluation as a part of necessary treatment or training for which a predetermined need exists, even when it is unclear what, if anything, the evaluation will reveal.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Dept. of Human Services v. J. D. R.
"DHS's efforts are not reasonable when they are not sufficiently aimed at alleviating the specific controlling jurisdictional basis." Dept. of Human Services v. L.A.K., 306 Or App 706, 716, 474 P3d 925 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L.
Schools have the authority to regulate some off-campus student speech without violating the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Postlethwait
ORS 161.067(1) provides, “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.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Reid
The officer’s testimony that defendant “failed,” when viewed in the context of testimony about standardized tests, would have led the jury to believe that the tests had been scientifically calibrated to detect impairment. State v. Beltran-Chavez, 286 Or App 590 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Tellez-Suarez
"In determining whether there was an invocation [of the right to counsel] at all, and if so, whether it was equivocal or unequivocal, [the court] look[s] to 'the defendant's words, in light of the totality of the circumstances at and preceding the time they were uttered, to ascertain whether a reasonable officer would have understood that the defendant was invoking that right.'" State v. Avila-Nava, 356 Or 600, 609, 341 P3d 714 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Thomas
ORS 138.105(9) bars review when a "[sentence is] imposed pursuant to agreement [between the defendant and the state], it [is] a specific sentence, and the trial court imposed that agreed-upon specific sentence." State v. Silsby, 282 Or App 104, 110-13, 386 P3d 172 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Kelly v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.
ORS 742.208 requires that fire insurance policies contain the provision that concealment, misrepresentation, or fraud of material facts by the insured voids the entire policy. A misrepresentation is material if it is “relevant and germane to the insurer’s investigation as it was then proceeding.” Callaway v. Sublimity Ins. Co., 123 Or App 18, 23 (1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
OR-OSHA v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Under OAR 437-001-0025, OR-OSHA’s only express interpretive constraints are those that OR-OSHA, itself, mandates, but “rules shall be liberally construed to accomplish the preventative purposes expressed in the [OSEA].”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Patel v. Siddhi Hospitality, LLC
When reviewing a contract, the court “examine[s] first the test of the disputed provisions in the context of the document as whole. If the document’s meaning is clear, [the Court’s] analysis typically ends.” Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358, 361-64, 937 P2d 1019 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Sachdev v. Oregon Medical Board
Administrative procedures are reviewed for constitutional violations by balancing the individual and governmental interests. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 US 471, 481 (1972). When issuing a final order, “the rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusion it draws from them” must be clearly articulable. Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19, 294 Or 357, 370 (1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Board
LUBA has an obligation to adopt findings of compatibility only "when it adopts the final facility plan." OAR 738-130-0055(6). Any previously approved versions of a Master Plan must be part of the record before LUBA. OAR 661-010-0025(1)(b). Whether an airport is a "rural airport" as described by ORS 836.642 is a completely different question than whether the proposed land uses are rural or urban.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Senvoy, LLC v. Employment Department
“A party must provide the trial court with an explanation of [its] objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately.” State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 632 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Service Employees Int'l Union Local 503 v. U of O
The Employment Relations Board "must assess the third Colton factor in its own right... without reference to [its] ultimate conclusion that the totality of the circumstances weighs in favor of disclosure under" ORS 243.672(1)(e). Oregon School Employees Association, Chapter 68 v. Colton School District 53, Case No. C-124-81 R 5, 6 PECBR 5027, 5031 (1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
State of Oregon v. M.P.
Under the 2017 Amendments to ORS 45.400, it is the “trial court’s decision whether to allow telephonic testimony in nonjury proceedings a matter of trial court discretion. Accordingly, when such a decision is challenged on appeal, [the Court] review[s] for abuse of discretion.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Commitment
State v. Dart
ORS 161.200 requires that a defendant’s perception of a threat be reasonable as gauged by an objective “reasonable person” standard and not a subjective, defendant specific standard for the choice of evils defense.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Estrada-Robles
Since the trial court’s decision in 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 140 S Ct 1390 (2020), which declared non-unanimous verdicts to violate the Sixth Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. F.J.M.
A psychological evaluation is authorized under ORS 419B.387 “if the court finds in an evidentiary hearing that treatment or training is needed by a parent to correct the circumstances that resulted in wardship or to prepare the parent to resume the care of the ward.”
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Alvarado
Under the Mayfield test, evidence must be logically relevant and have a probative value substantial enough to outweigh any attendant danger of unfair prejudice. Mayfield, 302 Ore. at 645.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Anotta
Pursuant to ORS 137.010, it is error for the court to impose that fee outside the defendant's presence because doing so prevents the defendant from arguing for such a suspension. State v. Baccaro, 300 Or. App. 131, 137 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Bilton
It is well settled that a trial court errors when imposing a DUII fee without first announcing it at sentencing.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Coats
A “sufficient pause” for purposes of ORS 161.067(3) means a “temporary or brief cessation of a defendant’s criminal conduct that occurs between repeated violations and is so marked in scope or quality that it affords a defendant the opportunity to renounce his or her criminal intent.” State v. Huffman, 234 Or App 177, 184, 227 P3d 1206 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Gayman
Operators of motor assisted scooters are not generally subject to the provisions of the vehicle code that apply to motor vehicles and their operators because motor assisted scooters are not physically capable of operating in the same manner as a motor vehicle, and the vehicle code reflects that distinction.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Macy
“It is error for a trial court to impose a fine or fee as part of a sentence on a misdemeanor conviction in a judgment when that fine or fee was not previously announced in open court at the defendant’s sentencing hearing.” State v. Tison, 292 Or App 369, 374 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Phillips
Protective measures taken by police officers must be proportionate to the perceived threat, reasonable suspicion would develop if a Defendant took some substantial step towards the end alleged.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Tatman
A person commits the crime of endangering the welfare of a minor when the person subjects a child to prolonged presence in a location where “a principal or substantial use of the place is to facilitate unlawful drug activity.” State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 358 OR 451, 473 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Edwards v. Cavenham Forest Industries
Compensation may be recovered for medical services for conditions caused in material part by the original injury or for conditions consequential to the original injury, where the original injury is the major contributing cause of the consequential condition. ORS 656.245(1)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Hercenberger v. Hercenberger
ORS 33.105(1) provides several options for a court to impose remedial sanctions. If a trial court has other lawful means to enforce a judgment, such as those provided by ORS 33.105(1)(f), any error in enforcing the judgment in the manner it chose is therefore harmless.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
MAT Inc. v. American Tower Asset Sub, LLC.
Evidence of privileged communications pertaining to alleged fraudulent concealment meets the threshold provided by State v. Bray. 281 Or App 584, 616, 383 P3d 883 (2016), aff'd 363 Or 226, 422 P3d 250 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Sause and Schnitzer
Under ORS 109.239 (1977), amended by Or Laws 2017, ch 651, § 4, “a mere genetic connection that a gamete donor has to a resulting child does not, in its own right, confer parental status.”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. C. A. M.-D.
Restitution is appropriate when the state presents evidence that the criminal activities have caused economic damages. State v. McClelland, 278 Or App 138, 141, 372 P3d 614, rev den, 360 Or 423 (2016). A causal connection requires that the defendant’s criminal conduct be a “but for” cause of the victim’s damages and that the damages were a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s criminal conduct. State v. Emerine, 308 Or App 211, 216-17, 480 P3d 308 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Phillips
Pursuant to ORS 144.791, the trial court must obtain a PSI before sentencing a defendant for a felony sexual offense. State v. Biles, 87 Or 63, 68, 597 P2d 808 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Ramirez
Under ORS 809.235(1)(b), an out-of-state conviction “cannot serve as a predicate offense unless the offense requires proof that the person’s impaired driving was causally related to the person’s use of an intoxicant.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Sheikhuna
The State needs only to prove that Defendant was aware of the assaultive nature of his conduct and that his conduct in fact caused the injury. State v. Barnes, 329 Or. 327, 337-38 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Sorrow
Under 164.055, theft “requires a thief to intend permanent or virtually permanent loss to the owner of the possession and use of property.” State v. Christine, 193 Or App 800, 809, 93 P3d 82, rev den, 337 Or 476 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Stewart v. Board of Parole
Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), “substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Strand v. Garvin
According to ORS 107.135(1), a party seeking to modify a judgment as to parenting time must serve the notice on the other party in the manner provided under ORCP 7, and within 30 days of service, the served party must file a written response with the court. ORS 107.135(4). An error may arise when a trial court fails to “make a record reflecting an exercise of discretion”, further, the court must "supply . . . enough information to enable appellate courts to engage in meaningful review of the court’s exercise of discretion.” Ray Klein, Inc. v. Wade, 358 Or 374 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Craigen
Questioning a defendant, outside of counsel, about new criminal conduct is not prohibited by Article I, section 11 when that conduct is: (1) different in nature from pending charges, (2) separated by a substantial amount of time from the pending charges, and (3) investigated by different officers than those that investigated the criminal activity responsible for the pending charges. State v. Craigen, 295 Or App 17, 432 P3d 274 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Rodriguez-Aquino
Confessions are presumptively involuntary and the burden lies with the interrogator to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant’s will was not overcome by the inducement held out by the interrogator. State v. Vasquez-Santiago, 301 Or App 90, 106, 456 P3d 270 (2019); State v. Powell, 352 Or 210, 222, 282 P3d 845 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure