Oregon Court of Appeals

Opinions Filed in March 2024

Mason v. Griffin-Valade

Article XVII, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution requires proposed amendments to the constitution to be submitted to voters in a manner that allows each amendment to be “voted on separately."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

State v. Pfannenstiel

And in determining whether instructional error was harmless, “we consider the instructions ‘as a whole and in the context of the evidence and record at trial, including the parties’ theories of the case with respect to the various charges and defenses at issue.’ ” State v. Owen, 369 Or 323.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Wilson v. Mack

“No matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error was preserved in the lower court.” ORAP 5.45(1). “An unpreserved error is reviewable as plain error when (1) the error is one of law; (2) the legal point is obvious, meaning it is not reasonably in dispute; and (3) to reach the error, we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it.” State v. Nickerson, 272, Or App 155, 156 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

City of Cornelius v. Department of Land Conservation and Development

“Whether a notice of proposed rulemaking substantially complies with…ORS 193.335 must be measured against the purpose of the notice.” Oregon Funeral Directors v. Mortuary and Cemetary Bd, 132 Or App 318, 323 (1995). Additionally, an agency exceeds statutory authority if the rule "departs from a legal standard expressed or implied in the particular law being administered, or contravenes some other applicable statute." Planned Parenthood v. Dept. of Human Res., 297 Or 562, 565 (1984). 

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Lowes v. Thompson

Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute ORS 31.150 protects free speech in public matters, but these rights can be waived by contract.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

State v. Guerrero

Second-degree kidnapping may be committed by asportation, taking the person from one place to another. ORS 163.225(1).

“[A]nother important factor in determining whether the defendant moved the victim ‘from one place to another’ is whether the movement served to limit the victim’s freedom of movement and increase the victim’s isolation.” State v. Walch, 346 Or 463, 475, 213 P3d 1201 (2009).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State v. Slay

Under OEC 403, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Ward and Ward

In “exceptional cases” the Court will undertake de novo review of a trial court’s decision, applying the factors described in ORAP 5.40(8)(d). Dept. of Human Services v. D.W.M., 296 Or App 109, 111, 437 P3d 1186 (2019) (citing ORAP 5.40(8)(c)).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Back to Top