Dep’t of Hum. Servs. v. S.J.
Dependency jurisdiction is not warranted if a parent has entrusted the primary care of their child to another caregiver as long as that arrangement does not expose the child to a current risk of harm. See Dept. of Human Services v. A.L., 342 P.3d 174, 179 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Dorn-Privett v. Brown
“Under ORS 161.067(1), referred to as the “anti-merger” statute, “[w]hen 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:- Post-Conviction Relief
Indoor Billbd. / Northwest, Inc. v. TheLaundryList.com
An Oregon trial court may exercise personal jurisdiction “over a properly served defendant ‘[i]n any action claiming injury to person or property within this state arising out of an act or omission outside this state by the defendant,’ so long as, at the time the alleged injury occurred, the defendant either carried on ‘[s]olicitation or service activities … within this state,’ ORCP 4 D(1), or ‘[p]roducts, materials, or things distributed, processed, serviced, or manufactured by the defendant were used or consumed within this state in the ordinary course of trade,’ ORCP 4 D(2).”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Bridge Creek Ranch v. Water Resources Dept.
A permit for storage, in and of itself, does not constitute or include the right to use stored water; it is the secondary permit that applies the water to beneficial use. Cookinham v. Lewis, 58 Or 484, 492, reh’g denied, 58 Or 495 (1911); see also Nevada Ditch Co. v. Bennett, 30 Or 59, 89 (1896). The holder of the storage certificate and the holder of the certificate for use of the water together create the appropriation and the beneficial use. See also Nevada Ditch Co., 30 Or at 98.
Area(s) of Law:- Water Rights
Jacobus v. Klamath County
"LUBA is entitled to deference in the interpretation of its own administrative rule 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:- Land Use
N.W. Natural Gas Co. v. Environ. Quality Comm.
ORS 468A.327(1) provides: Prior to the adoption, amendment or repeal of any rule pursuant to ORS chapter 183 that applies to any facility required to pay fees under ORS 468A.315, the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) shall include with the notice of intended action required under ORS 183.355(1) a statement of whether the intended action imposes requirements in addition to the applicable federal requirements and, if so, shall include a written explanation of: (a) the commission’s scientific, economic, technological, administrative or other reasons for exceeding applicable federal requirements; and (b) any alternatives the commission considered and the reasons that the alternatives were not pursued.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Free Oregon, Inc. v. Oregon Health Authority
“[I]n reviewing a rule challenge under [ORS 183.400], we may declare the rule invalid only if we conclude that it violates constitutional provisions, exceeds the statutory authority of the agency that adopted the rule, or was adopted without complying with rulemaking procedures.” BP West Coast Products, LLP v. Dept. of Justice, 284 Or App 723 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores - Kroger Co.
The Court undertakes a review for substantial evidence that incorporates substantial reason "to determine whether the [Worker's Compensation] board adequately explained how it got from the factual findings that it made to the legal conclusions that it reached." SAIF v. Harrison, 299 Or App 104, 105 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Huskey v. Dep't of Corrections
“Article I, section 41(3), states, in relevant part, that ‘no inmate has a legally enforceable right to a job or to otherwise participate in work, on-the-job training or educational programs or to compensation for work or labor performed while an inmate of any state, county or city corrections facility or institution.”
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Jenkinson v. Lane Co.
"Increasing the breadth, or scope, of the county’s delegated authority is not the same as adding more stringent approval standards for land divisions over which the county had been delegated authority to regulate."
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use