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
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
State v. Mello
“A trial court has sua sponte duty to exclude clearly scientific testimony regarding FSTs when it is presented without a proper foundation”. State v. Ortiz, 325 Or App 139. “Erroneously admitted evidence that relates to a central factual issue is more likely to have affected the jury’s determination”. State v. Whitmore, 257 Or App 664.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Murphy
The constitutional right to access public property does not confer an unlimited right of access.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Staniford
The physical injury element of fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence can be met if there is an "impairment of the ordinary function of a body part." State v. Hart, 222 Or App 285, 291 (2009). Additionally, "relatively minimal movement" is sufficient to meet the asportation requirement. State v. Anderson, 329 Or App 754, 758 (2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Worsham
Where a term’s legal meaning differs from common usage, an instruction may be necessary. Because it was here, it was plain error to fail to instruct the jury on the limits and elements of the defense.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
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
McClusky v. City of North Bend
“Proof of a causal connection between protected conduct and a materially adverse action can be established (1) indirectly, by showing that the protected activity was closely followed by discriminatory treatment***or (2) directly, through evidence of retaliatory animus directed against a plaintiff by the defendant”. Meyer v. Oregon Lottery, 292 Or App 647, 681-82. “An employee has engaged in protected activity under ORS 659A.199 if that employee has reported information that they subjectively believe is a violation of a state or federal law, rule, or regulation and has a good faith basis for that belief”. Boyd v. Legacy Health, 318 Or App 87, 98-99.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
State v. Muñiz
Prosecutorial misconduct occurs when statements divert the jury from deciding the case based on the evidence by introducing emotional or improper bias. State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305, 518 P3d 903 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Puckett
ORS 138.105(4)(a) limits appellate review of new trial motions to those based on juror misconduct or newly discovered evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
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
State v. Wicks
Reasonable suspicion exists “when an officer can point to specific and articulable facts that give rise to a reasonable inference that the defendant committed or was about to commit a specific crime or type of crime.” State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 165, 389 P3d 1121 (2017).
That inference must be “objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances known to the officer.” State v. Bradley, 329 Or App 736, 741, 542 P3d 56 (2023).
- Traffic Infractions
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
State v. Christ
“A prospective juror’s statement of bias shall not of itself be sufficient to sustain the challenge, but the court must be satisfied, from all of the circumstances, that the juror cannot disregard such opinion and try the issue impartially.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
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
Dept. of Human Services v. T.F.
“The reasonable-efforts inquiry focuses on DHS’s conduct, and a parent’s resistance to DHS’s efforts does not categorically excuse DHS from making meaningful efforts toward that parent.”
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Blue
Mere speculation that a document is inaccurate is not sufficient to create a genuine question of authenticity.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Raney
A “defendant's right to confront witnesses may be satisfied…where (1) denial of such confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy and (2) the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law