Oregon Court of Appeals

Opinions Filed in February 2023

Dep't. of Human Services v. Lindsey

The Court explained that in determining the protected activity under the Anti-SLAPP statute, the court must engage in a two-step burden shifting process. First, the court must determine whether the defendant has met its initial burden to show that the claim against which the motion is made arises out of one or more protected activities described in subsection (2) of the statute. Second, if the defendant meets its burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff in the action to establish that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie case. Young v. Davis, 314 P3d 350 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

State v. Brunkal

To preserve an issue for appeal, the appellant must provide the trial court with a specific objection that affords the court an opportunity to analyze any alleged error. State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 344-46 (2000).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Donato

“An order given under ORS 162.247(1)(b) is ‘lawful’ if it is authorized by, and is not contrary to, substantive law.” State v. Kreis, 365 Or 659 (2019). “[T]he term lawful order in ORS 162.247(1)(b) does not create an opening for unequal or discretionary application” and “leaves nothing to the ad hoc judgment of an individual police officer.” State v. Navickas, 271 Or App 447 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Columbia Cnty. v. Rosenblum

Under ORS § 33.710 “[there] are no justiciability limitations on the exercise of judicial power in public actions or cases involving matters of public interest.” Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or. 460 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Frost v. State

The Court agreed that their use of State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 520 (2007) and State v. Berndt, 282 Or App 73, 80 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 311 (2017) could cause confusion between post-conviction relief petitions and the petition for reconsideration and removed this sentence in their previous opinion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Kizer Excavating Co. v. Stout Building Contractors, LLC

“Claims in quantum meruit can proceed on two distinct theories: a theory based on a promise to pay for services “implied in fact,” which “retains a contractual character,” or a theory based on an obligation ‘implied at law’ as necessary to avoid unjust enrichment.” In re Klamp, 363 Or 62, 418 P3d 733 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Lee (House of R.E.A.P.) v. Secretary of State

ORS 65.067 does not prohibit the reinstatement of administratively dissolved corporations sole which are otherwise eligible for reinstatement under ORS 65.654.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

Randall v. Valk

“A notice that fails to comply with statutory requirements for its contents is invalid.” See Hickey v. Scott, 370 Or 97 (2022).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Landlord Tenant

State v. Richey

OEC 401 provides a "very low" bar for the admission of evidence. State v. Titus, 328 Or 475, 480-81 (1999). "Relevant evidence is evidence that matters - and thus makes a difference - to the case in which it is offered." State v. Richey, 324 Or App 290 (2023).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Twigg v. Admiral Ins. Co.

“In order for the duty to indemnify to arise, the insured must be liable for harm or injury that is covered by the policy.” Ledford v. Gutoski, 319 Or 397, 405 (1994). The Supreme Court has held, "there can be no ‘accident,’ within the meaning of [an insurance] policy, when the resulting damage is merely a breach of contract.” Oak Crest Const. Co. v. Austin Mutual Ins. Co., 329 Or 620, 626 (2000).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Dept. of Human Services v. W.L.J.-E.

Under ORS 418B.504, a court may terminate parental rights if a parent's conduct or condition is seriously detrimental to the child, and it is improbable that the child will be able to return home within a reasonable time due to the conduct or conditions not likely to change

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Haidar v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

In determining whether there was sufficient evidence to support the denial of the request for discharge from PSRB's jurisdiction, the Court considered the evidentiary records to determine if they would make a reasonable person come to those findings. Rinne v. PSRB, Rinne v. PSRB, 443 P3d 731 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Marshall v. Meyers

“[W]e now hold that, when a petitioner seeks post-conviction relief, on Sixth Amendment grounds, from a judgment of conviction which was based on a nonunamimous verdict and which became final before the Supreme Court’s Ramos decision issued, the petitioner is entitled to relief - assuming that none of the procedural defenses in the Post-Conviction Hearings Act have been raised and sustained.” Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604 (2022).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

State v. Dent

The framework required for issuing a warrant upon an affidavit is “(1) whether there is reason to believe that the facts are true, and (2) whether the facts and circumstances disclosed by the affidavit, if true, are sufficient to establish probable cause to justify the search requested.” State v. Goodman, 328 Or 318 (1999). Charges are cross-related if they “arise out of the same act or transaction.” State v. Dulfu, 363 Or 647, 669 (2018). “[T]wo charges arise out of the same act or transaction if they are so closely linked in time, place and circumstance that a complete account of one charge cannot be related without relating details of the other charge.” Id.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Meighan

In order for sexual assault diagnosis to be admissible, it must tell the jury something that it could not determine as well on its own by showing that the physical evidence meaningfully corroborates the diagnosis, the expert “significantly relied on the physical evidence in making the diagnosis, and the diagnosis involves a complex factual determination that a lay person cannot make as well as an expert. State v. Beauvais, 357 Or 524, 354 P.3d 680 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Thomas

In order to assess double jeopardy claims, the Court considered various factors, including whether the conduct involved in both offenses was continuous and uninterrupted, whether it was linked temporally and spatially, and whether it served a single criminal objective. State v. Wilder, 471 P3d 798 (2020).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Thomas

ORS 813.131(5)(b) provides: “A chemical analysis of a person’s urine is valid if analysis is performed in an accredited or licensed toxicology laboratory.” “So long as the jury is correctly instructed that a finding of guilty cannot be made on less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it cannot be error to also instruct them that they may use their powers to reason and common sense, and may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.” State v. Hines, 84 Or App 681 (1987).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Hanson & Hanson Joint Revocable Living Tr. v. Sliger

“A landlord may not terminate or fail to renew a tenancy, serve notice to terminate a tenancy, bring or threaten to bring an action for possession. . . . because a tenant is, or has been, a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.” ORS 90.499.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Landlord Tenant

Flores v. Escalona

Under ORS 107.105(1)(f), the Court must consider whether a division of property is just and proper in all circumstances when deciding whether an unequal distribution of real property is warranted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

State v. Boggs

A culpable mental state other than knowledge attaches to the property value element of theft in the first degree. State v. Shedrick, 370 Or 255 (2022). “[T]he mens rea of criminal negligence includes two components: (1) A failure of the person ‘to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstance exists,’ ORS 161.085(10); and (2) a risk of ‘such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.” Id.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Cantwell

In determining whether the fingerprint record created in the booking process is exempt from the hearsay rule by the public records exception, the court considered that it was created as part of the usual routine booking process and did not include the exercise of discretion or judgment by the booking officer. State v. Smith, 675 P2d 510 (1984).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Sells

ORS 161.125(1) provides, "voluntary intoxication 'shall not, as such, constitute a defense to a criminal charge'[.]” Further, evidence of voluntary intoxication "may be offered whenever it is relevant to negat[e] an element of the crime charged.” Id.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

State v. Wagnon

A medical charge is considered reasonable if it is at or below the market rate for the services, drugs, or other items provided. State v. Workman, 455 P3d 566 (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Back to Top