Anthony V. Albertazzi, P. C. v. Jones
ORS 82.010(2) applies to all judgments; an arbitration award is not a “judgment” as contemplated by the statute.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Justice v. Vercher
The courts will reconsider a common-law rule or doctrine when (1) “an earlier case was inadequately considered or wrong when it was decided,” (2) “surrounding statutory law or regulations have altered some essential legal element assumed in the earlier case,” or (3) “the earlier rule was grounded in and tailored to specific factual conditions and some essential factual assumptions of the rule have changed.” G. L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., 306 Or 54, 59 (1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
Morrison v. Chierichetti
ORS 107.105 ultimately requires courts to distribute marital assets as may be just and proper under all the circumstances, and this inquiry must consider factors such as the preservation of assets; the achievement of economic self-sufficiency for both spouses; the particular needs of the parties and their children; and the extent to which a party has integrated a separately acquired asset into the common financial affairs of the parties through commingling. Fuernsteiner-Perin and Perin, 211 Or App 23, 31 (2007); Kunze and Kunze, 337 Or 122, 136 (2004).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Pilon
“In assessing the proper remedy for a discovery violation, prejudice becomes the threshold issue. Wolfe, 273 Or at 524-25. In King, we noted that the prejudice inquiry must focus on the extent of surprise and the impact of the violation on trial preparation.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Simmons
“A person commits the crime of theft of services if: (a) With intent to avoid payment therefor, the person obtains services that are available only for compensation, by force, threat, deception or other means to avoid payment for the services.” ORS 164.125(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Omar
“If [a] trial court determines that the record could have developed in a materially different way if the error had not occurred, then a defendant is entitled to a new trial.” State v. Hightower, 368 Or 378, 387 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Torres v. SAIF
An injury is compensable when it arises “out of and in the course of employment requiring medical services or resulting in disability or death” and “if the work is a material contributing cause of the injury.” ORS 656.005(7)(a); Coleman v. SAIF, 203 Or App 442, 446 (2005). “However, when an otherwise compensable injury combines with a preexisting condition to cause or prolong a disability or the need for treatment, the combined condition is compensable only if the otherwise compensable injury is the major contributing cause of the disability or need for treatment.” SAIF v. Harrison, 299 Or App 104, 106 (2019) (citing ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B)).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Towey v. City of Hood River
"LUBA is entitled to deference in the interpretation of its own administrative rule[s] if its interpretation is plausible and not inconsistent with the rule, the rule’s context, or any other source of law.” Maguire v. Clackamas County, 250 Or App 146, 162 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Benson
Under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, “[n]o person shall be * * * compelled in any criminal prosecution to testify against himself.” Moreover, under ORS 136.425(1) a “confession or admission of a defendant, whether in the course of judicial proceedings or otherwise, cannot be given in evidence against the defendant when it was made under the influence of fear produced by threats.”
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
State v. Hershey
Article I, section 17 of the Oregon Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases that historically used jury trials before the Oregon Constitution was enacted and “cases ‘of like nature.’” Horton v. Or. Health & Sci. Univ., 376 P3d 998 (Or. 2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Bohr v. Tillamook County Creamery Assn.
Plaintiff must prove they purchased the product in reliance on the alleged false marketing, pursuant to ORS 646.608 (b) and (d). A business engages in unlawful practice if it, “(b) causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source of goods, and (d) uses deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods.”
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Eaton
ORCP 12 A provides that “[a]ll pleadings shall be liberally construed with a view of substantial justice between the parties.” ORCP 12 B provides that “[t]he court shall, in every stage of an action, disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings which does not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Hanley Engineering v. Weitz & Company
The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires a valid final judgment in one state, rendered by a court with jurisdiction over a person and subject matter governed by the judgment be recognized in all states. However, it does not require states to adopt practices of other states regarding enforcement for judgments.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
K. R. M. v. Baker
ORS 107.716(3)(a) provides that a court may continue a FAPA order if the court determines that: “(B) The petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s physical safety” and ORS107.104(1)(b)(2) provides an exception to enforcing a stipulated agreement when enforcement “would clearly contravene public policy.”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
Marteeny v. Brown
Under ORS 144.650, “[w]hen an application for a pardon, commutation, or remission is made to the Governor, a copy of the application . . . shall be served upon: (a) [t]he district attorney . . . [and] the district attorney . . . shall (a) [n]otify the victim of the crime.”
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Hinkle
“In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party.” ORCP 34 E.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Hoffman
Medical reports containing blood alcohol results are not self-authenticating and requires a witness to testify as to the medical blood draws chain of custody or proper authentication. State v. Martin, 207 Or App 31, 41 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Tow
Under ORS 162.315(2)(c), “‘Resists’ means the use or threatened use of violence . . . or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person and includes . . . behavior clearly intended to prevent being taken into custody.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Human Services v. J. L. S.
An out-of-court statement is typically hearsay, and thus inadmissible, if it is offered to prove the truth of the matter it asserts. OEC 801(3); OEC 802. Evidentiary errors are harmless and do not warrant reversal “if there is little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict.” Dept. of Human Services v. G. D. W., 353 Or 25, 39 (2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
In re Weatherspoon & Stevens
“The court shall not order joint custody, unless both parents agree to the terms and conditions of the order” ORS 107.169(3)
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Johnson and Henderson Partnership v. Henderson
The party alleging that a partnership exists must show that there is “some evidence” of some of the factors in ORS 67.055(4)(a) for the factfinder to find that a partnership exists, and the question of “whether a partnership exists based on the evidence in the record will usually be a question for the jury.” Wirth v. Sierra Cascade, LLC 234 Or App 740, 761-65 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
State v. Pyle
Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution provides a defendant with a right to “have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,” and unless an otherwise lawful subpoena is quashed or modified by the trial court, it must be given effect.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Pringle Square, LLC v. Berrey Family, LLC
Equitable doctrines do not apply to legal claims made by defendants in interpleader actions.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure