J.E.-S v. Shields
Under ORS 107.716(3)(a), the trial court may continue a FAPA order following a contested hearing after finding that (1) the respondent committed past abuse within 180 days of filing, (2) the petitioner reasonably fears for their physical safety, and (3) the respondent represents a credible threat to the petitioner’s physical safety or the physical safety of their children.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. Bilbao
Under ORS 135.703 and ORS 135.705(1)(a), a trial court has statutory authority to dismiss a charge pursuant to a civil compromise only if four conditions are met: “(1) the defendant is charged with a crime punishable as a misdemeanor, (2) the person injured by the act constituting the crime has a remedy by civil action, (3) the person injured acknowledges in writing before trial that the person has received satisfaction for the injury, and (4) the defendant pays costs and expenses incurred.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Greenwood
When the State violates a defendant’s right to counsel by intruding on a defendant’s attorney-client privilege, the State bears the burden of proving there is an absence of prejudice to the defendant.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy
“For an energy facility or a related or supporting facility that must be evaluated against the applicable substantive criteria pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, that the proposed facility does not comply with one or more of the applicable substantive criteria but does otherwise comply with the applicable statewide planning goals, or that an exception to any applicable statewide planning goal is justified under subsection (2) of this section”. ORS 469.504(1)(b)(B).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Strain
Two exceptions which permit the prosecution to address a defendant’s failure to present or contradict evidence are (1) affirmative defenses, and (2) when the defense holds the burden of proof for an issue it raises but fails to produce evidence. State v. Mayo, 303 Or App 525, 531-2, 465 P3d 267 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Teitelman v. SAIF
When an insurer submits an Independent Medical Examination (IME) as evidence to support denial of a worker’s claim, the denial is “based” on an IME such that the worker is eligible for a Worker Requested Medical Examination (WRME) under the terms of ORS 656.325(1)(e).
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Trent v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
“ORCP 71 reserves the trial court’s inherent power to entertain an independent action to relive a party from a judgment. Generally a trial court has inherent authority to correct or set aside a judgement, provided that it does so both (1) within a reasonable time and (2) for good and sufficient reason.” Patrick v. State of Oregon, 178 Or App 97, 104 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure